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

Despite annotations only saying readOnly=false and idempotent=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: grove enforces acceptance-criteria gates, standard uses advisory linting, and the created goal returns id, webUrl, mode, and nextStep. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps an agent anticipate side effects and validation constraints.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core action and mode distinction before covering return value and project requirement. Every sentence earns its place, with no tautology or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key constraints an agent needs: modes and their behavioral differences, the requirement to belong to a project, the return payload, and the acceptance criteria validation rule. Remaining parameter defaults and types are fully covered by the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value for mode and projectId/parentId by explaining the enforcement difference and inheritance rule, and it clarifies the acceptanceCriteria evidence-gate behavior. It doesn't enumerate every parameter, but the schema already covers those details.

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 opens with 'Create a goal/task/milestone/habit in the planning tree,' giving a specific verb plus resource and clearly distinguishing this creation tool from the many goal-update/goal-add/goal-attach siblings. The mention of two modes adds scope without obscuring the primary purpose.

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 explicitly explains when to use grove mode versus standard mode based on whether evidence-gating is required, and it states the project-membership rule (projectId or inherited from parent). It does not explicitly contrast with goal-update, but the creation context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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