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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the no-support precondition, the fact that supported goals persist in history, and the explicit 'cannot be undone' warning about irreversibility.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then consequence, then the irreversibility warning. No filler and each sentence adds a distinct constraint.

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 no explanation, and the description covers preconditions and consequences well. The only gap is the semantics of the required 'id' argument, which is left entirely to the bare schema.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description says nothing about what the id refers to (goal id vs. other identifiers) or its expected form. With one undocumented param, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Delete) plus resource (a goal) and adds a hard precondition ('that nobody has given to yet') that separates it from update_goal and delete_goal_update. An agent can identify the exact object and condition without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly defines when the tool applies (no support given) and what happens in the alternative case (a supported goal can only be turned off, never deleted), which routes the agent toward a different action. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tool to use instead.

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