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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the side effect on other goals (deactivated, not deleted), a plan-based refusal precondition, a Premium feature gate, and the visibility consequence of an inactive/incomplete goal. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by side effects, plan gates, and an edge case. Each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with 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?

The tool is a mutation with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, so the description's job is behavioral context — and it supplies side effects, preconditions, gating, and an edge case. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema documents active, impact, deadline and targetAmount already. The description adds genuine meaning for 'active' by spelling out its consequences (becomes the shown goal, others put away), which the schema's one-line 'Show it on the page straight away' does not cover, while adding little for the rest.

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 ('Create a goal') and immediately pins the required inputs (title, target in whole rupees). It also distinguishes the operation from neighboring concepts by noting that a replaced goal is 'put away, not deleted' and that set_active_goal restores it, so the agent can separate create from delete/set_active without opening other schemas.

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?

Provides real conditional guidance: default activation behavior, the free-plan refusal when another goal is running, Premium gating for impact tiers. It stops short of explicitly naming when to pick create_goal over update_goal or list_goals, but the preconditions and plan constraints give the agent enough to decide correctly.

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