set_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether setting a goal overwrites an existing one, required permissions, or side effects. The description only states the action without any behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the trigger, followed by the purpose and parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, though minor redundancy exists with 'Set an OKR-style goal' and subsequent parameter definitions.

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 simple creation tool, the description covers the essential what and when but lacks important contextual details like whether it overwrites existing goals, what the output contains (though output schema exists), and prerequisites. It is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, explaining objective as 'qualitative, aspirational goal' and key_results as 'comma-separated measurable key results'. Given 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable, though more detail on key_results format could enhance clarity.

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 sets an OKR-style goal, with the trigger specifying when to use it (starting a sprint or setting a major objective). It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_goal or update_goal by focusing on creation of a new goal.

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 trigger 'Call this when starting a sprint or setting a major objective' provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which could be improved with reference to sibling update_goal for modifications.

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