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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/not-readOnly, and the description adds substantially more: requester gating, a mandatory Ed25519 signature over a named statement, the required X-Agent-Id/X-Signature/X-Timestamp headers, an enrollment path for missing keys, and per-transport signing rules including single-use signatures on the SSE bridge. This is behavioral context well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first clause, but the body is dominated by transport/signing mechanics, including parenthetical detail about query strings and session IDs that is operationally relevant yet bulky for a tool description. Every sentence is defensible, but the balance is skewed toward auth minutiae over task-ordering semantics.

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 annotations already carry the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, the description is nearly complete for a mutation tool: it covers the mutation's meaning, the ordering semantics, and the full auth/signing procedure. The main gap is the undocumented request_id/goal_id parameters.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates well for `order` ('order[i] = task ids that run in parallel at step i; lower = do first'), which is richer than the schema's terse note. However, `goal_id` and `request_id` remain undocumented in both places, so the compensation is partial.

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 and resource ('Set the PRIORITY + PARALLELISM of one goal's tasks') and immediately defines the payload shape ('an ordered list of parallel batches'). It also routes relative to the sibling set_goal_order by declaring 'same shape as set_goal_order', so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

'Requester-gated' is a stated prerequisite and the set_goal_order comparison gives implicit context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, nor a clear statement of how this differs in effect from set_goal_order or set_hierarchy. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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