update_task_progress

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics, which is the key behavioral trait for a PATCH tool, but says nothing about permission requirements, side effects of changing percentage, failure modes when progressId does not belong to the task, or the response shape.

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 with the mutation semantics front-loaded and the ID-discovery hint second. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be removed without losing information.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity, partial-update behavior, and ID lookup, but omits validation expectations (e.g. progressId must belong to taskId/projectId) and any indication of what a successful call returns.

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 every one of the eight parameters is already documented in the schema, including ranges and ID provenance. The description only reinforces the optional/partial nature of non-required fields; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 plus resource ('Update an existing task progress entry') and disambiguates the Spanish term 'seguimiento/follow-up', which separates it from create_task_progress and update_project_progress by name. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, but the resource scoping is unambiguous.

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 actionable PATCH guidance ('send only the fields to change') and a prerequisite step for the required progressId via list_task_progress. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. that status-only changes belong to bulk_update_task_status rather than here.

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