Set progress

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

With annotations present, the description still earns credit by disclosing two non-obvious traits: the value propagates to predecessors and successors, and the operation is a single undo step. It doesn't mention permissions or what happens to downstream scheduling beyond propagation, so it's strong but not complete.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action first and alternatives and side effects following in priority order. 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, alternatives, side effects, and undo behavior. What's missing is only marginal (e.g., whether propagation failure rolls back the change).

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 100% and both parameters carry descriptions including min/max, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description only restates the 0–100 % range already in the schema, adding no meaningful param nuance.

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+resource ('Sets the actual progress of a task') with an explicit range, and explicitly distinguishes itself from rillsoft_task_progress_recalculate (bulk derivation) and rillsoft_task_update (planning data). An agent can select it 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?

Explicit alternative routing: use this for setting one task by hand, use rillsoft_task_progress_recalculate for deriving progress from the status date, and use rillsoft_task_update for planning data. Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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