update_goal

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update' with no mention of side effects, error conditions (e.g., no current goal), or whether changes are permanent. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear and efficient.

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 mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does. The only ambiguity is 'current goal', but this is a domain concept that may be established by sibling tools, so it does not hinder the agent's basic understanding.

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 already fully describes the 'description' parameter. The tool description adds meaningful context by specifying 'current goal', which clarifies which goal is being updated—information not present in the schema. This extra context earns a score above the baseline.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('description of the current goal'). It is specific and unambiguous, differentiating it from sibling tools that deal with plans and todos rather than the goal's description.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a current goal must exist) or exclude scenarios where another tool like start_planning or save_plan might be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied.

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