metrica.goals.create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only adds the 'pro-only' subscription constraint. It says nothing about required permissions, side effects, whether the goal is immediately active, or any rate limits on a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero filler, but it is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented required nested object, edging toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a required nested payload that is undocumented in both the schema and description. An agent cannot determine what payload fields to supply or what the call 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?

Schema coverage is 33%: account_id is documented but the required nested 'payload' object and counter_id have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the most important required argument completely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (goal) within the Metrica namespace, which is enough to distinguish it from metrica.goals.list/get/update/delete. However, it does not differentiate from the overlapping metrica.hf.create_goal sibling, and gives no sense of what a 'goal' contains.

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?

The '(pro-only)' tag is a useful prerequisite note, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when this should be preferred over metrica.hf.create_goal or raw_call.

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