create_project_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the critical side effect that percentage 100 automatically CLOSES the project and blocks further time entry, plus the recovery path via update_project. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or behavior on duplicate report dates for the same project.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the independence note, then the destructive-side-effect warning, then the lookup hint. No filler sentences; the WARNING casing makes the highest-risk fact scannable.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential gotcha, the reference-data lookup, and the sibling boundary. It leaves open whether the call returns the new entry ID and how repeat reports for the same date are handled.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the consequence of percentage=100 (project closure), and the source of valid assessmentId values. It adds little about shortDescription vs. description beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a project-level progress (Seguimiento) entry') and enumerates the payload fields (report date, completion percentage, assessment rating, status description). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the per-task variant by stating it is 'Independent from per-task progress', separating it from siblings like create_task_progress.

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?

Gives concrete pre-conditions ('log hours first' before setting 100%) and points to get_reference_data for assessment IDs and update_project for reopening. It implies rather than explicitly names create_task_progress as the alternative for task-level reporting, so the routing is slightly less than complete.

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