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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), the description discloses the non-obvious two-phase write behavior: the call returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token and nothing is written until confirm_action is invoked. That is exactly the kind of consequence-level detail annotations cannot convey, and it is consistent with 'additive and low-risk'.

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: purpose and scope first, parameter summary second, confirmation protocol last with a clear labeled prefix. No filler, and the most surprising information (the confirmation flow) is placed where an agent will still be reading.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers everything needed: the write target, required vs optional inputs, value formats, risk level, and the full confirmation lifecycle including the returned status and tokens. An agent can invoke it correctly and know exactly what comes back without a 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%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it marks title as required, lists the three optional fields, and adds formats the bare schema does not surface in readable form (target_date as YYYY-MM-DD, progress as 0-100). Remaining gaps are minor, such as no guidance on what description should contain or how progress interacts with default state.

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 a specific verb and resource, 'Create a personal goal in the caller's active workspace', which pins down both the operation and its scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as update_goal or create_task as the contrasting alternative, so differentiation is left partly implicit, but the resource and workspace scoping are 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?

It gives a clear trigger condition (creating a goal in the caller's own workspace) and a detailed procedural note on the confirmation handshake, including the follow-up tool confirm_action. It does not spell out when not to use it versus update_goal or other create_* siblings, so it is context-rich but without explicit exclusions.

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