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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the baseline bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not say whether this is a partial update (only objectiveId is required), what happens to omitted fields, or what side effects hitting key results or cycle alignment may have.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Slightly dense as a comma list, but every token carries a field name and nothing is wasted.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only baseline annotations, the description is thin. It omits partial-update semantics, permissions, and any side effects on key results or parent/child objectives, leaving an agent guessing about behavior after 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% against 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does name roughly eight of them (title, description, status, dates, cycle, parent, strategic goal). It adds no format or constraint detail, though — the status enum values, weight range 0-10, and objectiveId itself are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Update') plus resource ('objective') and an enumeration of the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not differentiate from the sibling mutators update_key_result and update_strategic_goal, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus update_key_result/update_strategic_goal, no prerequisites (e.g., permissions, objective must exist), and no note on read-before-write. The agent gets a field list but no routing guidance.

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