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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With destructiveHint=true already carrying the mutation/destructive signal, the description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: tenant-scoped access control, a 404 for out-of-workspace projects, non-empty enforcement for goal_md, and the exact return shape. It does not explicitly state that an existing goal is overwritten, but the destructive annotation covers that risk.
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?
Three tight sentences: one for purpose, one for parameter/scoping constraints, one for the return contract. Information is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant with the annotations.
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 output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter constraints, authentication scope (tenant), error behavior (404), and return values. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains goal_md is free-form markdown and must be non-empty, and the tenant-scoped note clarifies that project_id must reference a project in the caller's workspace. This is useful, though project_id's type/format is left implicit.
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-resource pair: 'Set the outcome to aim at right now,' which clearly identifies the product-goal resource and distinguishes it from sibling read tool get_product_goal and long-term set_product_vision. It also explains the intended effect ('work is prioritised toward one thing'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
It gives clear context: this is for setting the current outcome/focus, and it warns that goal_md must be non-empty and that tenant-scoped projects outside the caller's workspace will 404. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'right now' framing plus sibling names makes the selection context fairly clear.
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.