progress_regenerate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the file is overwritten (force-rewrite) and that content is rebuilt deterministically from SQL state, which implies local edits to PROGRESS.md are lost. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, target file, and data source with no wasted words.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, whose sole parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The agent lacks enough context to know when to call it or what to pass.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions 'project' at all. Since the schema leaves the parameter undocumented, the description should compensate but provides nothing, so the agent cannot tell what the argument represents or whether it is optional (required count is 0).

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 (force-rewrite) and resource (PROGRESS.md) with its source of truth (SQL state), which distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling progress_get. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the operation's boundaries.

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?

There is no statement of when to invoke this versus progress_get, no prerequisites, and no indication of what triggers a needed regeneration. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the word 'Force-rewrite'.

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