update_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating operation ('Update') but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error handling (e.g., if key_result not found), or whether progress is absolute or incremental. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence purpose followed by clear, bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 three required parameters and absence of annotations, the description covers input semantics but omits behavioral details like return values, error states, or confirmation of success. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the burden slightly, but the description still lacks completeness for a confident agent invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'goal_id' is an integer ID, 'key_result' is the exact text (not an ID), and 'progress' is a new percentage from 0-100. This clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 verb 'Update progress' and the resource 'specific key result of a goal', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_goal' and 'archive_goal' by specifying it updates existing progress rather than creating or archiving.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update progress versus setting a new goal or checking goals. It also lacks prerequisites or conditions that might affect its usage.

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