update_project_progress

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that omitted fields are left unchanged, but says nothing about whether the entry must exist, whether projectId and progressId must be consistent, permission requirements, or irreversibility of the change.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded: the mutation semantics first, the prerequisite lookup second. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 7-parameter partial-update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, which fields are optional, and how to get the required ID. It is short of full coverage only because it omits mutation-safety context and doesn't describe what is returned on success.

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% and every property is documented with bounds (0-100 percentage, ISO 8601 date), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only extra is pointing to get_project_progress/includeEntries for the progressId lookup, which is cross-tool guidance rather than parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing project-level progress (Seguimiento) entry') and names the domain term, which distinguishes it from update_task_progress and create_project_progress in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly sets partial-update semantics ('send only the fields to change') and routes the agent to get_project_progress with includeEntries true to obtain the required progressId. It doesn't state a negative case (e.g. use update_task_progress for task entries), but the 'project-level' phrasing carries most of that weight.

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