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

Annotations declare this is a non-read, non-destructive write. The description adds the auth requirements (write key, member access or higher), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide. It stops short of describing side effects or the return shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the access prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not attempt to explain return values (fine). It covers the three goal types and the scroll threshold, plus auth. The main gap is the undescribed name parameter and any confirmation of what a successful creation returns.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the type-specific role of threshold ('at least threshold percent (type scroll)'), clarifying that scroll goals drive threshold. The name parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, so it is not fully complete.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (Create a goal) and then defines what a goal counts: sessions visiting a page, firing a custom event, or scrolling. This is richer than a tautology, though it never names a sibling to distinguish itself from (e.g., list_goals).

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?

It provides a prerequisite (needs a write key and member access or higher), which is real usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to list_goals or other create tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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