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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that omitted fields are cleared, not kept, which is crucial for a destructive update (annotations already declare destructiveHint=true). It could further clarify permissions or side effects, but this is a strong addition.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a critical usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, only 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the replacement semantics but lacks details on parameter meanings and expected outcomes. It is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 low (29%), but the description hints at the full-replacement semantics (send whole goal), which implies that all fields should be provided. However, it does not explain the meaning of specific parameters like operator or event_name, leaving gaps.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Replace a goal's definition.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_goal and update_funnel by specifying the operation on a goal. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools (update_site, update_funnel) beyond the resource name.

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?

The description implies usage for replacing a goal's definition and warns to send the whole goal, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_goal or list_goals, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing goal_id.

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