Create Goal

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

Annotations already convey the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotence, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the useful behavioral context that creation is scoped to path-matching or event-matching conversion tracking, and it tells the agent to verify with list_goals. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly worded sentences: purpose, actionable configuration rules, and verification step. All content earns its place, and the goal-type conditional is front-loaded immediately after the definition.

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 compensates by instructing the agent to verify creation with rybbit_list_goals, and the schema already handles nested optional fields and additionalProperties constraints. For a create tool with conditional configuration, the combination is sufficient for a correct call.

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 75% schema coverage, the schema documents most parameter names, but the description resolves the key cross-field dependency that the schema cannot express: goalType='path' requires config.pathPattern, while goalType='event' requires config.eventName, each with concrete examples. It does not add much for propertyFilters or eventPropertyKey/Value, but the schema covers those.

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 first sentence names the exact action and resource ('Create a new conversion goal in Rybbit') and defines what a goal does ('tracks conversions when users visit a specific page path or trigger a custom event'). This clearly separates it from the dozens of read/analysis siblings and from create_site/create_funnel, while the singular 'a new' distinguishes it from rybbit_batch_create_goals.

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 gives explicit conditional instructions for path goals ('set goalType='path' and config.pathPattern') and event goals ('set goalType='event' and config.eventName'), plus a verification workflow via rybbit_list_goals. It does not, however, call out rybbit_batch_create_goals as the alternative for creating many goals, so there is a small routing gap.

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