tpb_error

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state mutation (marking as failed), but does not explain side effects, reversibility, required prior state, or any other behavioral traits beyond the literal action. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence, clearly front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but the brevity leaves out important details, preventing a perfect score. It earns a 4 for efficiency, not for completeness.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description should still clarify parameter meanings and usage context. It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete information. The description is not fully adequate for a tool with two parameters and no other guidance.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about the parameters (slug and status_text). The agent is left to infer what these parameters mean from their names alone, which is insufficient for reliable invocation. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action and resource: 'Mark a progress bar as failed.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing the purpose from siblings like tpb_done (mark as done) and tpb_increment. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from 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 the sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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