Mark Progress

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write operation, but the description adds little beyond that. It restates the status enum from the schema and does not explain whether an existing status or note is overwritten, appended, or constrained by status transitions. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but also no meaningful additional behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the object, and the allowed status values. It contains no filler, unnecessary clauses, or vague abstractions. The minor redundancy of the enum is acceptable given the brevity.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and idempotency annotations, the definition is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing this tool over the read/search siblings, plus no detail about status transition behavior, but neither is critical for basic invocation.

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 each parameter already has a description and constraints. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond repeating the status enum, which is redundant with the schema. The schema fully documents phaseId, status, and the optional note.

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 target: 'Record progress status for a phase' and explicitly lists the three accepted status values. The verb 'record' contrasts naturally with the read/search nature suggested by sibling names get_status and search_process, making the tool easy to distinguish.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_status or search_process. It does not mention that reading status should use get_status or that search_process is for broader process lookup. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided.

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