update_plan_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions updating progress but does not disclose effects like whether the phase advances automatically, what triggers the update, or any side effects. The description is too vague to inform an AI agent about the tool's full 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) which could improve readability.

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?

Given no output schema and a moderate complexity (2 parameters, one nested object), the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like whether the user must have certain permissions or the plan must already exist. The nested 'adjustments' object is not elaborated.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: 'phaseComplete' is already described in schema as 'Mark current phase as complete'. The nested 'adjustments' parameter has minimal schema description, but the tool description does not clarify it further.

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 specifies the action ('Update'), resource ('project plan progress'), and condition ('when phase is complete'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_project_state and update_ticket by focusing on plan progress, though it could be more explicit about marking phases.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'when phase is complete' implies a usage context, but there is no comparison to update_project_state or other siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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