Update Goal

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the partial-update behavior, the returned object, and the critical constraint that setting status requires a configured metric, which is not evident from 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no filler. The warning about status is essential and placed at the end without disrupting the core purpose.

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 9-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key semantics: partial update, return value, and an important edge case. No output schema exists, so mentioning the returned goal object is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces partial-update semantics and repeats the status/metric warning, but does not add new parameter-specific meaning 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 action ('Update'), the resource ('an existing goal'), and the scope ('fields'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_goal, get_goal, and delete_goal. The 'Only supply the fields to change' adds precision about the update semantics.

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 context: it updates an existing goal, not creates one, and explicitly instructs to supply only changing fields. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the sibling list makes it obvious; no exclusions are needed.

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