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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations — that company admin permissions are required — but says nothing about partial-update semantics, reversibility, or side effects.

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 with no filler, so it is efficient — but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing. Front-loading the verb is fine, yet nothing substantive follows it.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, no nested objects, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It never explains what the update changes, whether fields are optional, or what happens on success/failure.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description names none of the updatable fields (title, status, priority, targetDate, description). An agent gets no help understanding what can be changed, whether the update is partial, or what the status enum means.

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?

"Update a strategic goal" is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title; it adds no scope, no fields touched, and no differentiation from siblings like update_objective or update_key_result. Only the permission clause adds any new information.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the permission note, and no routing to alternatives such as update_objective, update_key_result, or propose_strategic_goal. The agent must infer context entirely.

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