set_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses two important traits: omitted parameters leave existing targets unchanged, while 0 clears a target. It does not cover response shape or validation behavior, but the central mutation semantics are clearly stated.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the target definition and then state the behavior rules; there is no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning not already in the schema.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema give enough to call the tool correctly for the common cases: pass a numeric target to update it, omit a field to keep current, and use 0 to clear. A small ambiguity remains about whether explicitly sending null is treated the same as omission, but this is minor.

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?

The schema provides only names and nullable number types with 0% description coverage, so the description adds nearly all the parameter meaning: kcal and grams for protein/carbs/fat. It also explains how null/omission and 0 behave, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 identifies the resource as daily targets and spells out the exact fields: kcal, protein, carbs, and fat. It lacks an explicit verb like 'sets' or 'updates', relying partly on the tool name, but the meaning is unmistakable and distinct from the other food-logging siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use set_goals versus any alternative, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The need to use it for setting daily targets is only implicit from the name and context.

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