Update an initiative

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: automatic date logging for progress lines, case-insensitive substring matching for completing todos, and the side effect of removing the pointer from AGENTS.md when status is 'done'. These details are crucial for safe usage.

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 concise but packs multiple instructions into a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses clear action verbs. Minor improvements could include bullet points for readability, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key behavioral aspects and usage guidance. It lacks explicit return value or error details, but for an update tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'progress' is dated automatically, 'complete_todos' uses substring matching against unchecked items, and status 'done' triggers removal of the pointer. Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description compensates effectively.

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 clearly states the tool updates a named initiative and lists four specific actions: appending a progress log, adding todos, checking off completed todos, and changing status. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like `start_initiative` and `get_initiative`.

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?

The description explicitly advises to call the tool proactively as progress happens, not just at session end. It also explains the effect of setting status to 'done'. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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