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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutation (readOnly=false) and not destructive (destructive=false). The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as what is returned or whether creation can fail, so it does not earn credit for extra transparency, but it does not contradict the 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the type glossary is compact and immediately useful.

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?

The input schema provides full parameter coverage, including type-specific hints, so the description does not need to restate them. Given the remaining gaps are minor (e.g., no explicit return behavior), the combined description and schema are sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema documents all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic mapping by glossing milestone as a checklist and numeric as value tracking, helping an agent pick the right goal_type.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new goal') and resource, and adds the four goal types to make the scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish this from closely related siblings such as create_habit or update_goal, but the create/goal pairing is clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Nothing routes habit-goal creation to create_goal versus create_habit, or directs users to update_goal for existing goals; the type list is descriptive, not usage guidance.

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