Create Objective (OKR)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the mutation action described. The description adds that fields are verified in-org, but does not cover all behavioral traits (e.g., atomicity of key result creation). No contradictions exist.

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 main action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core creation action and key constraints. While it lacks details on return format (e.g., includes objective ID), it is adequate given the schema richness and lack of output schema. It could be more complete but is not deficient.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining free-text period, verification of IDs, and key result structure. This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the basic schema properties.

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 'Create an objective, optionally with key results, and return it.' It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_objective and list_objectives.

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 context on optional fields and constraints (e.g., period is free text, product_id/parent_id verified in-org). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_objective, though it is implied.

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