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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the source goals are not deleted but remain 'in the archive, marked as moved', which resolves the apparent tension between the word 'move' and destructiveHint=false. It still omits idempotency (what happens if run twice) and any permission requirement.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the secondary sentence answers the obvious follow-up question about the source goals.

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 single-parameter, annotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the scope, subgoal handling and the fate of the source goals. Minor omissions remain around default horizon, repeat-run behavior and the result of the call.

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% and there is one parameter, so the description must carry the load. 'the previous month, quarter or year' maps directly onto the horizon enum values and conveys that the parameter selects the granularity of the source period. It does not state the default when horizon is omitted (required=0), leaving one gap.

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 (move) plus the exact resource (open goals of the previous month/quarter/year) and the scope (including open subgoals). No sibling tool performs a period-to-period carry-over, so it is unambiguously distinguished from add_goal/update_goal/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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'previous month, quarter or year', which suggests running it at the start of a new period. It never states when to prefer this over manually re-adding goals, nor any exclusions such as what happens when there are no open goals to carry.

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