Track Goal Completion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only repeats the goal name validation rule already in the schema, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, persistence, response format, or any prerequisites. This is a write operation with no behavioral context beyond the obvious 'track' action.

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 with no extraneous content. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a critical validation constraint. Each sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/failure behavior, or how metadata is used. The tool has 4 parameters but the description only covers the goal name constraint, leaving the agent without enough context for reliable invocation.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the name constraint already present in the parameter description. No additional semantics for metadata or visitorId are provided.

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 tool's specific action: 'Track a custom goal completion for a specific visitor.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_goals or delete_goals, and includes the target resource (custom goal) and scope (specific visitor).

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 usage for recording goal completions but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus track_payment or other event-tracking siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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