Batch Create Goals

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key runtime behavior: goals are created sequentially to respect rate limits, failures do not abort the batch, and the response is a summary of successes and failures. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent predict side effects and handle partial failures.

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 four short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds sequential execution, partial-failure behavior, and return summary—each sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (a summary of successes and failures), which is sufficient. The input schema fully documents the nested goal configuration, and the description covers the behavioral aspects that schema cannot.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (siteId and goals) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create multiple conversion goals at once.' It clearly distinguishes this batch operation from the sibling rybbit_create_goal by emphasizing multiplicity, and the behavior is immediately understandable.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating multiple goals in one call, and the sequential execution note provides practical context. It does not explicitly name rybbit_create_goal as the alternative for single-goal creation, so it stops short of a 5.

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