create_task_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that creating progress triggers status transitions, parent task rollups, project progress recalculation, events, and notifications. It does not cover permissions, validation failures, or whether the created entry can later be edited or deleted, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by consequential behavior and the assessment lookup hint. There is no wasted text, and the most important side effects are easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains purpose, key side effects, and required assessment lookup. It could further explain permissions, error behavior, or what the created entry returns, but the schema covers parameters well.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats the assessmentId discovery hint and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reporting progress by creating a new task progress/follow-up entry. It clearly explains this is the way to set completion percentage, but it does not explicitly name or compare against the sibling update_task_progress, leaving some ambiguity about why to create rather than update an existing progress entry.

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?

It gives clear usage context by saying this is the correct way to set a task's completion percentage and by pointing to get_reference_data for assessmentId discovery. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives such as update_task_progress or bulk_update_task_status.

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