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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the lock-refusal behavior and the fact that subgoal ids are supplied with each goal, which is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey. It does not cover what happens if both done and text are passed or neither, leaving a modest gap.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the id-sourcing and lock-precondition details. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 small three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and helpful annotations, the description covers the action, the id source, and the failure precondition. The only meaningful omission is guidance on the done/text interaction, which is minor given the schema's field names.

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 only 33% (just subgoal_id documented), so the description must compensate, and it does by mapping the two undocumented parameters to intent: done corresponds to ticking, text corresponds to renaming, and ids come from the goal's subgoals list. It still does not clarify whether done and text can be combined or whether at least one is required.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('tick a goal's subgoal done or not done, or rename it'), covering both mutation modes the tool supports. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like update_goal, delete_subgoal, and add_subtask without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 for when the tool applies (ticking or renaming a subgoal) and states a real precondition: ticking is refused while the goal is locked. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or saying when not to use this one, so it is strong context but not full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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