paperclip_update_goal

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with an update. The description adds value by stating the return behavior (returns the updated goal object) and error codes. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: main action, args with examples, return type, usage examples, and error handling. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Approximately 10 lines.

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?

All necessary information for an update tool is covered: parameters are fully documented, examples are given, error handling is included, and return type is mentioned. No gaps given the context signals.

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 100%. The description adds meaningful examples (e.g., goalId 'gol_abc123', status 'completed'), clarifies that description supports markdown, and explains the format of each parameter beyond the schema.

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 'Update a goal's title, description, or status' and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'paperclip_create_goal' in the usage guidelines. The tool name is self-explanatory.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'Use when: closing a completed goal or updating its description after a planning session' and 'Don't use when: you need to create a goal — use paperclip_create_goal instead'. Error handling for 401 and 404 is also included.

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