start_progress

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it 'starts tracking progress', implying a state change, but does not explain idempotency, the need to pair with update/complete tools, or what happens with duplicate progressTokens. This is a significant gap for a state-initiating operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the action verb. It is concise and efficient.

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?

The tool has a simple signature and high schema coverage, but the description does not articulate the relationship with sibling tools or the expected lifecycle (start → update → complete). It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for proper workflow usage.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for progressToken, title, and total. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a clear action verb 'Start tracking' with a specific resource 'progress' and a context 'long-running operation'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (notify, update_progress, complete_progress) by indicating the initiation phase, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be called before update_progress/complete_progress or that it is for initiating a progress tracking session. The sibling tools are not referenced in the description.

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