update_reading_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies mutation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what the response contains. The description lacks critical behavioral context for 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?

The description is appropriately brief but could be more front-loaded. The first line 'Update reading goal.' is clear but sparse, and the parameter documentation is well-structured but could be integrated more seamlessly. No wasted words, but room for improvement in flow.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 3 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, and moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of behavioral context for this mutation operation, but the parameter documentation is strong.

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?

The description provides clear semantic meaning for all three parameters beyond what the schema offers (0% coverage). It explains that 'goal_id' identifies the goal, 'value' is the target number of books, and 'progress' is current books read (with optional status). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('reading goal'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_reading_goals' or 'get_goal_progress' beyond the update action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing goal), exclusions, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'get_reading_goals' or 'get_goal_progress'.

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