atlas_add_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Track a new goal' only loosely implies creation and does not state that this creates a persistent goal record, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with no annotation safety signals, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource before mentioning optional additions. It earns a high score for brevity, though slightly more detail could have been added without harming conciseness.

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?

With 5 parameters, 3 required fields, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'track' means operationally, whether the goal is immediately persisted, or what success looks like. An agent would need to infer important behavioral details from the tool name and schema alone.

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 all parameters. The description adds modest value by identifying milestones and target_date as optional, which helps an agent understand required vs. optional inputs, but it does not explain nuances like the lens enum or ISO date format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a clear action ('Track') with a specific resource ('a new goal') and mentions the optional fields. It distinguishes the create operation from the sibling atlas_update_goal by emphasizing 'new,' though it does not explicitly name the sibling. The scope is evident enough for an agent to understand this tool creates a goal.

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 implies this is for creating a new goal rather than updating an existing one, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like atlas_update_goal or atlas_track_commitment. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where an alternative should be used.

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