sync_doc_progress

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the progress formula, phase completion criteria (all sub-checkboxes [x]), auto-transitions to '진행'/'완료' with actual dates, and the optional description PATCH including the label template and HTML conversion. It even states that checkboxes and process meta steps are excluded.

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 long but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose, then each subsequent sentence adds essential details on formula, defaults, transitions, and the description parameter. No sentence is redundant.

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 complex sync tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description covers all critical aspects: calculation method, phase completion, task_id resolution, status transitions, description formatting, and exclusion of checkboxes/meta. The existence of an output schema covers return values, so omitting them is acceptable.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds rich meaning to all parameters: task_id fallback to frontmatter, doc_path as the required document path, and description's role in patching the task body with a precise template and conversion rules. This far exceeds the raw schema information.

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 identifies a specific verb+resource pair: it reads Phase progress from a work request document and synchronizes the linked task's progress rate, status, and actual dates. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like update_task or task_from_doc, which focus on direct task editing or creation.

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 explains when to omit task_id (uses document frontmatter) and when to pass description (after document body modification, for regenerating the summary), explicitly contrasting with the automatic hook which is progress-only. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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