ue5_task_step

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals one non-obvious trait — evidence feeds 'the dashboard' — but does not say whether a 'done'/'failed' status mutates plan state, whether reporting is idempotent or repeated calls overwrite, or what happens if step_id is unknown to the plan. Those omissions matter for a progress-reporting 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 English clause is front-loaded and dense: purpose, two usage modes, and evidence semantics in two sentences. Roughly half the text is a Chinese restatement, which is duplication rather than added information, keeping it off a 5.

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?

Four optional parameters, a nested evidence object, no output schema and no annotations — the description covers the purpose and both invocation patterns adequately. Residual gaps are the state-mutation question and the absence of any note about valid step_id ranges or error behavior when the plan is not active.

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 both schema and description document all four parameters; the baseline of 3 applies. The description does add provenance for step_id (it must come from the plan declared in ue5_task_begin) and the intended content of evidence, but adds nothing about note-vs-status interaction or the accepted shape of nested evidence beyond the schema's example.

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 ('Report task progress against the declared plan') and, crucially, names the source of the step_id ('from ue5_task_begin steps'), which lets an agent distinguish this from ue5_task_begin/ue5_task_end without consulting sibling schemas. The two reporting modes (step-keyed status vs. free note) are spelled out up front.

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 clear conditional guidance on which parameter set to use: step_id + status when advancing a declared step, note when 'between steps', evidence when there is proof to attach. It stops short of stating when to use this versus ue5_task_end or ue5_task_list, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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