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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the two-step proposal workflow — a status='confirmation_required' response carrying an action_id and plan_token, with the write only occurring via confirm_action. It also states the authorization boundary that only the caller's own goal is reachable.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then the confirmation contract, so the most decision-relevant information comes first. It is dense with parentheticals and em-dash asides, but no sentence is filler given the amount of behavior it must convey.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition covers scope, parameter meaning and the confirmation protocol well. The remaining gap is patch semantics — it never says whether omitted fields are left untouched or reset, which matters for an update tool with destructiveHint=true.

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 must carry the burden and largely does: it names title, description, target_date with a YYYY-MM-DD format hint, status with its active/done/dropped values, and progress with its 0-100 range plus the semantic note that progress is not settable at creation. goal_id is covered only as 'by id', but the remaining five parameters gain meaning beyond the bare JSON types.

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 (edit) and resource (goal) with explicit scope (one of the caller's goals, addressed by id), and implicitly distinguishes itself from create_goal by noting that 'progress' 'cannot change at create time'. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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?

Gives a clear trigger context (editing an existing goal by id, including progress which is unavailable at creation) and explicitly routes the completion step to confirm_action. It does not enumerate when to prefer this over create_goal for new goals, but the guidance for the actual call path is unambiguous.

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