Update Key Result

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true. The description adds that omitted fields remain unchanged, which aligns with idempotency and provides useful behavioral context. No contradictions, but the description adds only modest extra transparency beyond 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?

Three sentences with no waste: the first sentence states purpose and behavior, the second provides id resolution guidance, and the third clarifies required fields. Front-loaded with most important information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the core update behavior and id resolution. It is sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention error conditions for missing ids.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description re-emphasizes that only id is required and notes the unit can be cleared, but adds no significant new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 updates a key result, primarily to move current_value, and specifies the resource (key result) and the action (update). It also provides a distinct usage context by referencing list_objectives for resolving the id, differentiating it from sibling tools like update_objective.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('most often to move current_value as progress lands') and how to prepare by resolving the id via list_objectives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though no direct alternatives exist.

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