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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Update' signals mutation, but there is no disclosure of permissions required, whether it is a partial or full update, what happens to omitted fields, or side effects like status-change notifications. Enumerating the status values is genuinely useful but is the only behavioral detail offered.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the status vocabulary. Every sentence earns its place; the terseness reflects under-specification elsewhere, not verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only defines the allowable values for status (which the schema does not encode as an enum). goal_id, firm_id, notes, target_date, target_amount, and current_amount are entirely unexplained 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+resource: updating a client goal's progress. It is clearly distinct from create_client_goal and get_client_goals by verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus create_client_goal or get_client_goals, and no prerequisites or context signals. The agent must infer that this is the mutation path for goals that already exist.

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