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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world semantics, so the safety profile is covered. 'Stored locally' usefully adds persistence scope beyond the annotations, but the description is silent on whether an existing goal is overwritten or how the setting is scoped (per workspace/user).

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 setter with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and where the value is stored. Minor gaps remain around overwrite behavior and scoping, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 100% and weekly_hours is documented with type, example (32), and an exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description adds no unit, range, or formatting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') and resource ('weekly hours goal'), and ties it to the sibling that consumes it ('used by target_check'), which separates it from the family of entry_* and summary_* tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with target_check's read behavior, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'Used by target_check' implies the context in which the value matters, which lets an agent infer this is the write counterpart to that check. It never states when to call it, whether it is required before target_check, or what happens if no goal is set, so guidance is only implied.

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