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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known; the description usefully adds that archiving is a non-destructive alternative to deletion. It does not explain whether omitted fields are left unchanged (partial vs. full update), whether existing values are overwritten, or any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the archive-instead-of-delete guidance front-loaded right after the purpose statement.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema description coverage, the description covers purpose and one key behavior but omits partial-update semantics and most parameter meaning. Annotations at least carry the destructiveness signal.

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?

With 6 parameters and only 17% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden but only clarifies isActive (archive semantics). name, targetAmount, description, and goalId are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb and resource ('Update fields of a savings goal') and adds a real semantic distinction: isActive=false archives rather than deletes. It doesn't name a sibling tool (e.g., delete_budget/contribute_to_goal analogues) to disambiguate, so it stops 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?

It gives one concrete usage rule – use isActive=false to archive instead of deleting – which is genuinely useful routing guidance. But it says nothing about when to update vs. use contribute_to_goal for adding funds, nor any prerequisites for choosing this tool.

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