Update Objective

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: partial update semantics ('omitted fields are unchanged'), null clearing behavior, and that the tool returns the updated objective. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this is a strong supplement.

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 sentences: the first states the core behavior and edge-case semantics; the second gives prerequisite and alternative. No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple update tool with 4 well-documented params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what updates, what happens when fields are omitted/null, how to resolve the id, and a sibling alternative. Nothing crucial is missing.

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 value by explaining the overall update semantics and specifically noting how to obtain the id ('Resolve the id via list_objectives'), which is not in the schema. Null semantics are already in the schema but reinforced.

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 is specific: it names the resource ('objective') and the exact updatable fields ('name / description / period'). It also distinguishes from siblings by pointing to update_key_result for key result value moves and implicitly contrasts with create_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 provides clear usage guidance: how to resolve the id via list_objectives, that only id is required, and an explicit alternative tool (update_key_result) for a different use case. This goes beyond generic guidance.

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