workflow.update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that progress is persisted, scoped to the current phase, and durable across chats. However, it does not disclose whether existing state is overwritten or merged, what prerequisites exist, or whether there is any confirmation/return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two focused sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the usage guidance earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-persisting tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the central purpose and typical use case. But it omits the role of the required repo_path parameter, the meaning of session_span and route_clarity, and any side effects or return behavior, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'open decisions', 'routing observations', and 'artifact paths' to likely parameters like open_decisions, route_clarity, and artifacts. However, repo_path, note, and session_span are left implicit, and the description does not explain enum semantics beyond what parameter names suggest.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('persist') and resource ('progress inside the current guided-development phase'), and explicitly scopes the action with 'without crossing a phase boundary.' This distinguishes it from workflow.advance and other siblings without being tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear use guidance: 'Use it to keep open decisions, routing observations, and artifact paths durable across chats.' It implies when this tool is appropriate rather than a phase-advancing alternative, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.