memorybank_track_progress

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses intelligent task merging to avoid duplicates and states no AI is used. However, it does not clarify whether updates replace or merge milestones/blockers, nor any permissions or side effects beyond task merging.

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?

Description is well-structured with a bullet list of capabilities. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly shorter. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given complexity (nested objects, 6 params, no output schema), the description covers main use cases but lacks information on return format, error handling, or what happens to existing data beyond tasks. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about merging tasks and repeats severity levels already in schema, but does not explain additional parameter meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool updates project progress with tasks, milestones, and blockers, and lists specific actions. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on overall progress tracking rather than individual task actions like claim/completed.

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 implies usage through listed capabilities (mark tasks, update milestones, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like memorybank_claim_task or memorybank_record_decision. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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