Update goal status to active, paused, completed, or abandoned; add milestones or mark them completed to maintain clear accountability and progress tracking.
Update goal status or complete milestones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | New goal status | |
| goal_id | Yes | The goal ID to update | |
| add_milestone | No | New milestone title to add | |
| complete_milestone | No | Milestone ID to mark as completed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the operations. It does not explain side effects of changing status, whether milestone completion is irreversible, permissions needed, or interaction between status and milestone parameters.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, earning its place. It is somewhat lean given the tool mutates multiple aspects, but it is not overgrown.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits how the operations interact, what happens after completion, and any constraints beyond the schema.
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 no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names the resource (goal) and specific operations (update status or complete milestones), which is clear and distinct from atlas_add_goal. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like atlas_complete_commitment, but the scope is evident from the verb and noun.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as atlas_add_goal or atlas_track_commitment. The verb 'update' weakly implies an existing goal, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.