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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds that the tool 'Returns updated goal details' and makes the mutation explicit with 'Add a contribution,' but it does not explain side effects such as whether a transaction is created or account balances change.

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?

Well-structured docstring with one straightforward purpose sentence, a compact Args list, and a clear Returns line. No filler; the operation is front-loaded and each section earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all invocation parameters and a return-value summary. It could be more specific about what 'updated goal details' contains, but the definition is sufficient for selecting and calling the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section defines every parameter with real meaning: goal_id identifies the goal, amount is a positive contribution amount, and note is optional. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles and 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 action ('Add a contribution') and target ('financial goal'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling goal tools like create_goal, update_goal, and delete_goal. The description is unambiguous about the resource being acted on.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_goal, update_goal, or link_goal_plan. The description implies contributing to an existing goal but does not state selection criteria, exclusions, or related tools.

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