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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this requires an existing objective, whether it creates or merely proposes for approval, what permissions are needed, or what happens on duplicate titles. 'Propose' hints at a non-final action but leaves the actual behavior unspecified.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a set operation, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and usage context elsewhere.

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?

The tool has eight parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description does not compensate for the missing annotations by explaining behavioral traits such as approval flow, permissions, or side effects. While the schema documents parameters and the output schema covers returns, the definition is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds only the parent-child relationship ('under an objective') and no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Propose) and resource (key result) with the parent scope (under an objective). It is distinguishable from most siblings by name and description, but it does not explicitly contrast with memory_strategic_key_result_update, which handles existing key results.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for creating a new key result rather than updating an existing one.

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