add-goals

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Create' aligns but adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or rate limits. The description only rephrases what is already in the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key usage hint.

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 an output schema available, the description need not explain return values. However, it omits important context such as error handling, idempotency (despite annotations being false), and constraints beyond the schema. It covers basic usage but leaves gaps for a complex tool handling multiple goals.

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%, and the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. The note about omitting workspaceId is repetitive. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides marginal value.

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 'Create' and the resource 'goals', and differentiates from siblings like 'complete-goals' and 'update-goals' by specifying creation of new goals. It also provides a specific usage note about personal vs. workspace goals.

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 a clear usage hint ('Omit workspaceId for personal goals'), guiding the agent on when to use which parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to other creation tools (e.g., add-tasks, add-projects) or state when not to use it.

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