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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Audited' is a genuine behavioral disclosure the schema does not contain, but permission requirements, reversibility of close, and partial-update semantics are absent (the schema only hints at clearing via empty strings).

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 fragments, action front-loaded, zero filler. The 'Audited' tag is separated out and earns its place, though the parenthetical field list is somewhat redundant against the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the main operation modes plus the audit trait. For a single-object mutation tool it is nearly sufficient, missing only permission/authorization context.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the empty-string clearing and the active/closed enum semantics. The description's field list (owner, target date, title) is a subset and adds no syntax beyond the schema; 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 (edit, close, reopen) and resource (objective), and enumerates the mutable fields. It is distinguishable from memory_strategic_objective_set (create) by the 'edit/close/reopen' framing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'close or reopen' phrasing implicitly routes the agent to the status transition use case, and the parenthetical lists editable fields. However, it never states when to prefer this over memory_strategic_objective_set or how it relates to objective_status_post, leaving the alternative-selection to inference.

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