update_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state whether this is a partial update, what side effects occur, whether authorization is required, or whether updating a goal cascades to key results. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 efficient sentence with zero fluff. It's concise but borderline under-specified rather than poorly structured.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain partial-update semantics, whether due_date accepts a timestamp, color format expectations, or how add_owners/rem_owners interact if both are provided. The tool carries meaningful complexity that the description fails to address.

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 43% (3 of 7 params documented: goal_id, add_owners, rem_owners). The description adds no parameter information at all. The description doesn't compensate for the 4 undocumented params (name, color, due_date, description), though these are fairly self-explanatory by name. The add_owners/rem_owners distinction is already in 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 'Update an existing goal' uses a clear verb+resource construction. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like update_task, update_comment, or update_key_result — though these are clearly distinct resources. The purpose is adequate but minimal, not specifying scope or what fields can be updated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no caveats about required fields or partial updates. An agent has no indication whether omitted fields are preserved or reset.

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