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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) it discloses two non-obvious behaviours: items are published on creation unless draft:true is passed, and the call returns the created goal with its assigned ID and the caller's permissions. It does not mention failure modes such as duplicate-label handling or what happens if parentId is invalid.

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?

Short, front-loaded and broken into scannable blocks: purpose, required/optional fields, duplicate warning, publish default, return value. Minor redundancy between "optionally key results" and "keyResults are optional — a goal without key results is valid", but nothing is verbose enough to distract.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming required fields, the default publish state and the return shape. Gaps remain around the four undocumented parameters (parentId, validFrom, references, classification) and the internal publish/draft lifecycle shared with engramic_record_publish.

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 only 11%, so the description has to carry weight; it explains objective, validUntil, keyResults optionality and the status default. However it never mentions label (a required field), parentId, validFrom, references or classification, and it refers to "objective" while the actual top-level required parameter is the detail object, which could confuse parameter mapping.

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 and resource ("Create a new goal") and immediately defines what a goal is ("captures an objective and optionally key results (OKR structure)") plus the intent ("desired outcomes the organisation is working toward"), which separates it from create_concept, create_constraint, create_gap and update_goal 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?

Gives a clear use case and a prerequisite workflow ("Use engramic_topic to browse children at the intended parent first — duplicates fragment the graph") plus an explicit condition for the draft flag ("pass draft: true only to hold it back unpublished"). It stops short of saying when NOT to use it, e.g. when a goal already exists and engramic_update_goal is the right call.

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