record_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses durability, validation of target existence, and module_id claim check. However, it omits side effects, error handling, and what 'durable' means operationally.

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 sentences front-loaded with purpose. No redundancy. Could be slightly improved by separating the validation note more distinctly, but overall 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?

No output schema, so description should explain return value or outcome. It does not describe what happens after logging, error responses, or how to interpret results. Lacks detail for a tool with three parameters and validation.

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 coverage is 0%, and description only mentions module_id as a known claim. It does not explain status (possible values or meaning) or evidence (optional usage). The description adds minimal value beyond schema structure.

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 logs a learning attempt with evidence (durable). It specifies validation against a target and known claim, distinguishing from sibling 'record_verdict' by mentioning similar guard. However, the concept of 'learning attempt' could be more precise.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'record_verdict' or 'status'. The mention of 'same guard as record_verdict' implies a shared validation pattern but does not clarify context or exclusions.

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