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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real context: activation is idempotent for already-active goals, unknown/other-status goals raise errors, and an active goal without a plan surfaces in get_planning_requests until submit_goal_plan is used (or NEXUS auto-generates it). This downstream side-effect disclosure goes well beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its preconditions before the workflow context; each sentence adds signal. The plan-related paragraph is slightly tangential for a tool whose job is activation, but it is genuinely useful for anticipating what happens next, so the cost is minor.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers preconditions, idempotency, error behavior, and the plan/task workflow handoffs. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter (schema only declares it as a string), so the description must carry the load and it does, specifying that goal_id is a UUID of the goal. That is the essential format hint, though nothing more (e.g., how to obtain the UUID, e.g. via list_goals/get_goal) is offered.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (activate) and resource (goal) plus the exact statuses it applies to, which cleanly separates it from close_goal, pause_goal, and update_goal. It also names the error outcome for other/unknown statuses, so an agent knows precisely what this tool does.

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 gives an explicit precondition (goal must be in 'draft', 'blocked', or 'paused') and states that already-active goals are returned unchanged while other statuses error, which is effectively a when-to-use/when-not rule. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to pause_goal/close_goal for the opposite direction, so it is clear context without full alternative coverage.

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