Update Key Result

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: omitted fields are unchanged (partial update), the tool returns the updated key result, and only id is required. This complements the existing safety annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the action and return behavior, the second gives id resolution and required-field clarity. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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's simple nature and the rich schema (100% coverage), the description covers all necessary context: id resolution, partial update semantics, return value, and the only required field. No output schema exists, so mentioning the return value is especially valuable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining current_value's typical use, partial update behavior for omitted optional fields, and the requirement that id comes from list_objectives. This elevates it above baseline.

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 identifies the verb ('Update') and the resource ('key result'), and goes further to specify the most common use case ('move current_value as progress lands'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_objective or update_task.

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 context for when to use the tool ('as progress lands') and how to obtain the required id ('Resolve the id via list_objectives'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough to guide correct usage.

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