Recompute progress

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it writes progress values rather than dates, and it is a single undo step. It does not state permission requirements or whether progress values can be overwritten non-idempotently, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the routing guidance. Every clause conveys distinct information - scope, what is written, where to go instead, and undo cost - with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter bulk operation, the description supplies the scope, the two alternatives, and the undo consequence, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify. The note that the computation is driven by 'the current status date' implicitly identifies the external input, adding a small amount of value.

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?

Specific verb ('Derives the actual progress of every task') plus the scope qualifier ('from the current status date, computed by RP') makes the action and its breadth unambiguous. An agent can distinguish it from the single-task and date-moving siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: moving unfinished work goes through rillsoft_project_status_date_reschedule, and adjusting one task by hand goes through rillsoft_task_progress_set. This is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement naming the exact sibling tools.

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