Create Objective (OKR)

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by noting that product_id and parent_id must be 'verified in-org' and that the tool 'return it' (the created objective). This goes beyond the schema. It does not mention idempotency or potential duplicate creation, but does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause adds relevant detail: creation, optional key results, return value, parameter constraints, and required fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return ('return it') but not the exact return format. It covers key usage constraints (required name, optional fields, verified in-org) and key results structure. Limitations like 'up to 10 key results' are present only in the schema, not the description. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly, though a few details remain implicit.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that period is free text, emphasizing optionality and in-org verification for product_id and parent_id, and explaining the key results structure (name required, unit/start_value/target_value optional). This supplements the schema descriptions effectively.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create an objective, optionally with key results, and return it.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('objective'), and effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_objective or create_initiative. The scope is unambiguous.

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 description provides clear contextual clues: period is free text, product_id and parent_id are optional and 'verified in-org', which informs how to source those parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as update_objective for editing existing objectives.

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