create_goal

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

Discloses default status='active' and that draft status puts it in pending queue, and workspace landing behavior. With no annotations, description carries full burden and does well, though could mention if there are any side effects like notifications.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then details. Every sentence provides distinct value, no fluff.

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 7-param tool with no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (top-level, defaults, workspace) and complements schema. Could be slightly more explicit about what 'top-level' means relative to a hierarchy, but overall complete enough.

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 86%, and the description adds value by explaining default behaviors for status and workspace, which aren't fully captured in schema descriptions. But it doesn't elaborate on success_criteria or priority beyond 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 clearly states 'Create a new top-level goal' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'derive_subgoal' which creates subgoals under an existing 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?

Explicitly says when to use (when human asks to set up a goal) and when not (use derive_subgoal for subgoals), plus details on defaults and optional workspace.

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