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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: Aimgod places cards left to right, default horizon is month/today when omitted, and a hard cap of 12 goals. It does not disclose what the tool returns or how failures (e.g. exceeding limits) are reported.

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?

Front-loads purpose before the structural rules, and every clause carries load (constraints, defaults, placement). The illustrative milestone example is slightly verbose but justifies itself by sharpening 'measurable'. Dense but not padded.

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 creation tool with no output schema and 3 params, the description is nearly complete: structure rules, limits, defaults, and ordering semantics are all covered. The main omission is not describing the return value (created goals' ids?), which matters for chaining into update_goal or link_goals.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description carries real weight and delivers: it explains `after` ('keys of goals in this flow, or ids already in the same period'), clarifies `final: true` and its 'nothing comes after' constraint, and covers the horizon default. It doesn't touch `sphere` or `important`, leaving those to the (sparse) schema.

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 ('Set/Build') and resource ('a bigger goal and the path to it') and frames it as a one-step flow creation on the Goals canvas. This clearly distinguishes it from single-goal siblings like add_goal or link_goals, since it produces a whole structured flow.

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?

Gives strong how-to-use guidance: exactly one final goal, 3-6 measurable milestones, 2-4 subgoals each, parallel branches, numbering that adds up. It sets clear expectations for correct usage. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. add_goal for a single goal) or an explicit when-not condition.

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