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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: open goals and their open subgoals are moved, while the old items remain archived and marked as moved. It does not explain re-run behavior or duplicate handling, but the idempotentHint=false annotation already signals non-idempotency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the archive behavior. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what moves, what happens to old items, and when to use it. It lacks edge-case details such as what happens when no open goals exist, but the annotations already communicate the safety profile.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so by mapping horizon to previous month, quarter, or year, making the enum values interpretable in context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: moving open goals from a previous period into the current one. It also clarifies the scope includes open subgoals, so an agent can distinguish this from add_goal, update_goal, delete_goal, and list_goals.

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 explicitly states the trigger condition: 'when the user asks.' That gives clear usage context, but it does not name when not to use it or describe alternatives, though the sibling set contains no direct equivalent.

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