set_product_goalSet 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details: goal_md must be non-empty, the operation is tenant-scoped, and out-of-workspace projects 404. That is meaningful context beyond the structured data.
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?
Two short, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler; the purpose leads and the constraints/return follow. Slight redundancy in restating the return shape when an output schema already exists, but overall tight.
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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the key gaps: the non-empty constraint on the markdown, tenancy scoping, and the 404 failure mode. Return values are redundantly restated despite the output schema, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.
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 parameter meaning. It documents goal_md as free-form markdown that must be non-empty, which is genuinely useful, but project_id is left entirely unexplained beyond its self-evident name (no format, id source, or lookup hint).
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 gives a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Product Goal') and clarifies the semantic intent – the outcome to aim at right now so work is prioritised toward one thing. It does not explicitly name the sibling set_product_vision, which would have made the delineation between goal and vision unambiguous, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Set the outcome to aim at right now, so work is prioritised toward one thing,' which tells the agent this is for prioritisation focus. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the adjacent set_product_vision / get_product_goal siblings that an agent might confuse this with.
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.