set_goals

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description confirms mutation via 'set'. However, it doesn't disclose whether this creates a new effective-dated entry alongside existing goals, overwrites prior ones, or requires existing goals to be present. The effective-dating semantics deserve more explanation given no idempotency guarantee.

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?

A single, informative sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly under-specified but 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?

The output schema exists, so return format is covered. The tool has 3 required params and the description explains roughly half. The effective-dating mechanism is a meaningful behavior not explained anywhere, which matters for a non-idempotent write operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it names only two of three parameters (calorie, protein) while silently omitting the crucial 'effective_from_date' parameter meaning. A helpful description would explain effective-dating behavior and how targets relate to each other. With high schema coverage (formats, exclusivity) providing baseline meaning, a 3 is fair.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Set effective-dated daily calorie and protein goals') and clearly states what it modifies. It distinguishes from siblings like get_goals (retrieval) and log_meal (meal logging), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 is the write counterpart to get_goals and establishes the 'effective-dated' concept, which suggests planning context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to alternatives.

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