update_goal

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

The description highlights atomicity ('All changes apply together'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, but provides no details on side effects, permissions, or error handling.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the key idea, and avoids redundancy. Slightly more structure could improve readability.

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 nested parameter structure and no output schema, the description fails to explain the changes object fields or return value, making it incomplete for safe use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no explanation for parameters like goal_id or the changes object, leaving their semantics entirely to inference.

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 'Atomic goal update' and lists the subsumed operations (update_goal, link_plan_to_goal, etc.), making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishing it from siblings like update_plan.

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 implies this tool should be used instead of calling multiple individual tools for goal updates, linking plans, and managing achievers, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative references.

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