Set the outcome to aim at right now, so work is prioritised toward one thing.
`goal_md` is free-form markdown and must be non-empty. Tenant-scoped: a
project not in the caller's workspace 404s. Returns {project_id,
product_goal_md, updated_at, next_step}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal_md | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation and idempotency, but the description adds useful behavioral detail: goal_md must be non-empty, tenant scoping can cause a 404, and the call returns a predictable object with updated_at and next_step. This exceeds what the annotations alone 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 description is compact and front-loaded: one key sentence, a parameter note, and a brief return contract. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
The description covers purpose, key constraint, tenant-scoping error behavior, and return shape. With only two required params and no nested objects, this is sufficient without being verbose.
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 provides zero description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It explains goal_md as free-form non-empty markdown and implies project_id identifies the target project via the tenant-scoped 404 behavior. This is meaningful semantic guidance, though it leaves project_id format unspecified.
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 phrase ('Set the outcome to aim at right now') and clearly identifies the resource (the project's product goal). It differentiates from the sibling set_product_vision by emphasizing the immediate focus ('right now') rather than a broader vision.
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 conveys when to use the tool: when work needs to be prioritized toward one current outcome. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for basic selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action duo, even within clusters like request handling or security reviews. The get_ vs run_ pairs are clearly separated, and descriptions explicitly contrast confusing alternatives such as archive_project vs delete_project.
The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (submit_request, list_projects, resolve_escalation). The one visible deviation is project_status, which breaks the get_/pattern, and signup is a single-word verb instead of sign_up.
37 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and spans auth, billing, project lifecycle, roadmap, escalations, product documents, and multiple review types. Most tools earn their place, but the surface is too large for one server and would be more coherent split into focused servers.
The domain coverage is broad: full project lifecycle, request intake/refinement, roadmap manipulation, escalation handling, product doc read/write, and security/legal review flows. Minor gaps exist, most notably no dedicated task-listing or task-update tool, but agents can work around these via project_status and list_escalations.