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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the main burden is elsewhere. The description adds useful domain context about what goals are and their field shape, but says nothing about permissions needed, failure behavior, or what replacing implies beyond the schema's own wording.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the alternative-verb scope, and the dense field enumeration earns its space. Slightly heavy in the second clause but no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the goal-definition shape well, but omits matching semantics (id vs metric+node), partial-failure behavior, and what is returned. The replace/deactivation behavior is only visible in the schema, not the description.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 100%, but the goals array items are typed only as a bare object with no properties in the schema. The description enumerates the goal item fields (metric, target, comparator?, period?, name?, node?, baseline_value?, notify?, id?), which genuinely compensates for that gap beyond what the schema documents.

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 pair (create or update) plus the resource (an agent's goals) and defines what a goal is – quality, speed, volume, outcomes, cost or ROI targets tracked by Agent Performance. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like set_performance_targets or set_agent_outcomes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 never says when to use this tool versus set_performance_targets, set_agent_outcomes, or list_goals, and gives no prerequisites or before/after workflow. Usage is only implied by the verb 'create or update'.

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