update_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the automatic status advancement to in_progress, rejection of invalid task states, and the return value lacking history. This gives the agent insight into side effects and boundaries beyond basic read/write hints.

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?

Three concise sentences pack purpose, constraints, side effects, and redirects. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

While the core behavior is well covered, the absence of parameter explanations and any output structure means the description is incomplete for a 6-parameter tool. It covers 'what' and 'when' but not the full 'how', leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains percent's range and type (0-100 whole numbers), but taskId, by, notes, current_step, and expected_version are unexplained. This leaves the agent guessing about required identifiers and optional context fields.

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 states a specific verb ('Report progress') and resource (task), with scoping constraints (0-100, whole numbers). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the returned snapshot lacks history (call get_progress for that), clearly separating it from tools like complete_task and claim_task.

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?

It explicitly states acceptable task statuses ('claimed/in-progress/revision-requested') and that other states (pending, completed, approved, cancelled) are rejected. It also directs users to get_progress for history, providing an explicit alternative for a related need.

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