metrica.hf.update_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the pro-tier requirement plus the apply/dry_run mutation gate, which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits what the update destroys, whether the patch is partial or full-replace, and any auth/permission specifics.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two load-bearing constraints are surfaced immediately. The 'Human-friendly:' prefix is mildly promotional but effectively signals the interface tier.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 params, a required nested 'goal' object, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. It gives no guidance on patch shape, dry_run behavior, or return/error semantics.

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 33% across 6 params, so the description should compensate but largely does not. It clarifies 'apply=true' but leaves the 'goal' patch object, 'goal_id', 'counter_id', and 'dry_run' unexplained, and ignores the nested object structure entirely.

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 and resource ('update a Metrica goal'), which clearly distinguishes it from the create/delete/list siblings. It does not, however, explain how it differs from the non-HF 'metrica.goals.update' sibling, leaving the 'hf' distinction implicit.

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?

Adds two real conditions: 'pro-only' (plan gate) and 'apply=true' (must be set to actually write). But it never says when to prefer this over metrica.goals.update or the raw goals API, so usage context is only partially specified.

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