metrica.hf.create_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema: the operation is plan-restricted ('pro-only') and requires 'apply=true'. However, it never says what creation does to existing state, whether it is reversible, or how dry_run behaves, leaving significant gaps.

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 short sentence with no waste, and the operation is front-loaded before the parenthetical constraints. Efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity.

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, a nested goal object, and only 40% parameter coverage – the description is far too thin. It omits permissions detail, the meaning of the nested goal payload, and dry_run/apply interaction that an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 only 40% and the description compensates minimally, mentioning only 'apply=true'. The required counter_id, the nested 'goal' object ('Raw goal object as per Metrica Management API' is opaque), and dry_run are never explained, so an agent gets little help resolving these inputs.

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+resource ('create a Metrica goal') and labels itself 'human-friendly', which implicitly distinguishes it from the raw metrica.goals.create sibling. It does not explicitly name that alternative or explain the wrapper's advantage, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Parenthetical '(pro-only, apply=true)' gives partial usage context – a plan requirement and a required flag. It does not say when to prefer this over metrica.goals.create or metrica.hf.update_goal, and offers no exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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