finance_goal_record_task_result

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not indicate whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or rate-limited. The tool likely performs a write operation, but no side effects or consequences are described.

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 short (three sentences plus args list), but the first sentence is a tautology and the second sentence about routing is implementation detail that may not help an agent. The args list is clear but lacks depth. Some conciseness is achieved at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool appears to be a write action in the finance domain with an existing output schema, the description should explain the action's effect, prerequisites, and how it relates to sibling goal tools. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's role in a workflow.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'message' is 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some context. However, it does not specify expected keys for the JSON or constraints on the free-text, leaving ambiguity.

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 states 'Run the finance domain agent action `goal_record_task_result`', which is essentially a tautology. It does not explain what recording a task result means—whether it creates, updates, or submits data. The verb 'Run' is vague, and the description fails to distinguish the tool's purpose from its name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance_goal_plan or finance_goal_execute_wave. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no decision criteria for tool selection.

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