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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful side-effect detail beyond them: a closing event and reason are written to history and a version snapshot is saved, and the closure is irreversible. The remaining gap is that it never explains what happens on a repeated close (error vs. no-op) despite the idempotentHint claim, nor any permission requirements.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, behavior and the pause_goal alternative follow, and parameters are gathered into a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or restates the name.

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 not be described. For a 3-parameter terminal mutation tool, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, side effects, the sibling alternative, and every parameter constraint — nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema carries no enum on final_status, so the description does the full job: it documents goal_id as a UUID, enumerates all four allowed status values, and states the conditional rule that reason is required for 'failed' and optional otherwise.

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 and resource ('Close a goal') plus the scope of the action ('with a terminal status, ending its pursuit'). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling pause_goal and implicitly from update_goal, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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 names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'to stop work temporarily use pause_goal instead.' Combined with 'A closed goal cannot be reactivated,' this gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance in one sentence.

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