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

Adds real value beyond annotations: partial-update semantics ('only the fields you want to change'), free status transitions, and a permission check requirement. However, annotations flag destructiveHint=true and the description never warns that supplying detail/keyResults may replace existing values — the one behavior an agent most needs to know before a destructive write.

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?

Four short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update instruction, with no filler sentences. Slightly fragmented but every line carries information.

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?

Covers the essentials for a mutation tool: how to invoke it, prerequisites, status behavior, and the return value ('Returns the updated goal with your current permissions'). It is not complete for a 9-parameter nested-schema tool, since half the parameters and the replacement semantics of detail/keyResults are left unexplained.

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% across 9 parameters, and the description only explains status (free transitions) and detail (objective and/or key results). label, parentId, validFrom, validUntil, references and classification receive no semantic explanation beyond their names, leaving the bulk of the surface undocumented in both places.

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 ('Update an existing goal') and clarifies it targets existing goals, which implicitly separates it from engramic_create_goal. It does not explicitly name sibling update tools (update_concept, update_gap, etc.), so differentiation is only partial.

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 concrete prerequisite workflow: 'Retrieve the goal first with engramic_topic (by ID) to confirm it exists and check your permissions before updating', naming a sibling tool explicitly. It also clarifies status transitions are unrestricted, but there is no guidance on when to update vs. create a new goal.

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