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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent; the description goes further by disclosing the precise scope of destruction—only the goal is deleted, linked tasks are unlinked and kept. 'Never deleted' adds strong value beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 sentences with the main action first and the critical side effect second. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

Covers the core action and the key side effect; idempotentHint covers repeated deletes. However, it does not mention whether associated subtasks or other linked entities are affected, and with no output schema the return/error behavior is left implicit.

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% for the single id parameter, so the description must compensate. 'by id' correctly maps the parameter to the goal identifier, which is sufficient for a one-parameter tool; no extra format or source guidance is needed given the schema's maxLength.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a goal by id') and clarifies the key boundary relative to delete_tasks: linked tasks are kept and unlinked, never deleted. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to remove a goal while preserving its tasks) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The side-effect sentence offers implicit guidance but no exclusions.

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