create_goal

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

No annotations are provided (neither readOnlyHint nor destructiveHint), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutative write operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether it overwrites existing goals, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate names, or how the response is structured. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 concise sentence with no waste. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, it's so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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?

This is a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no param-level documentation in the description. The complexity (owners as array, color, due_date in Unix ms, multiple_owners flag) deserves more behavioral and contextual explanation. The description leaves significant room for agent confusion about required vs optional semantics and creation side effects.

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 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema. The description adds zero meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The uncovered parameters (description, multiple_owners at 29%) are not addressed in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does most of the work.

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 'Create a new goal in a workspace' has a specific verb+resource (create a goal) and identifies the scope (workspace). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like create_key_result or update_goal. The purpose is clear but generic.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention relationships to goals (e.g., that goals live under a workspace, that key_results are associated with goals), nor any context about prerequisites like requiring team_id or that multiple_owners flag exists. There's no when-not-to-use information.

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