patch_content_progression

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond that. It clarifies the scope ('current user's progression') but does not disclose behaviors like whether the update overwrites existing status or has side effects (though openWorldHint=true is present in annotations). The description does not contradict annotations.

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 concise: two sentences plus two parameter lines. It front-loads the purpose and keeps parameter notes inline. No fluff, 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?

For a simple 3-parameter update with no output schema, the description is mostly complete but misses explaining content_id. It also doesn't mention any return value or error conditions, but given the simplicity and annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers workspace_id (with how to obtain it) and status (listing allowed values), but content_id is completely undocumented. This partial coverage adds value but leaves a gap.

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 clearly states the action: 'Update the current user's progression status for a content item.' The verb 'Update' and the specific resource (progression status for a content item) are explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like patch_media_progression (media-specific) and get_progression_stats (read-only).

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 implies usage when updating progression status but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., patch_media_progression) or provide exclusion criteria. It does give guidance for obtaining workspace_id via list_workspaces(), which is helpful, but no clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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