create_key_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It confirms this is a create/mutation operation via 'Add', but doesn't disclose what happens on success (return format), ownership and validation requirements, whether 'automatic' type requires list_ids/task_ids to be set, or edge cases. For a creation tool with 6 required params, 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?

A single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately and adds a clarifying parenthetical. Perfectly sized for the information it conveys.

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 9 parameters (6 required), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema does substantial lifting. However, the tool has complexity around 'automatic' type key results (which reference list_ids/task_ids), and the description doesn't explain when to use automatic vs manual tracking or how steps_start/steps_end work for boolean types. For 9 params with no output schema, some behavioral completeness is missing.

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 all 9 parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no param information. However, the tool description contextualizes the purpose ('key result'/target to a goal) which helps understand that goal_id, name, steps_start/end relate to target tracking. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers all params, though the description adds minimal 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 'Add a key result (target) to a goal' uses a clear verb+resource pattern, identifying that this creates a key result attached to a goal. It distinguishes from siblings like update_key_result and delete_key_result through the 'Add' verb, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_goal. The parenthetical '(target)' adds useful context that a key result is a target metric.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and doesn't mention requirements like an existing goal needing to be created first. There's no mention of prerequisites (goal must exist) or limitations. Among many sibling tools, nothing distinguishes when to use this vs alternatives beyond the 'Add' verb.

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