set_study_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose one behavioral trait: goals appear in daily briefings and help the planner prioritize. However, it omits side effects like overwriting existing goals, idempotency, and permission requirements, leaving partial transparency.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the downstream effect. Both sentences add value with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-param mutation tool, but missing return/output behavior and whether setting a goal overwrites an existing one. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete.

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?

The schema documents all 3 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not add syntax details. It reinforces the goal and deadline but adds no new semantic information 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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('study goal') with a required deadline. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like log_quiz_result or get_daily_briefing by naming a unique action.

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?

Clear context is provided: the goal is for a student with a deadline and affects briefings/planner. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, but no sibling tool performs this function, so the context is sufficient for use.

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