aureon_create_objective

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the irreversibility of two fields and the default automationMode=auto, which is genuine mutation context. However, it says nothing about required permissions/wallet auth, what the create returns (no output schema exists), or side effects such as keeper vault behavior mentioned in the schema description.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the highest-risk constraint (locked fields) and the default. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a 14-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the immutability trap and default but omits what the caller receives back (objective id), auth requirements, and any validation behavior. The rich schema compensates for parameter detail, leaving the description adequate but incomplete.

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 schema already documents all 14 parameters, including the 'locked after create' notes on targetSymbol and automationMode. The description's field guidance largely repeats that structured data, so baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Financial Compass Objective.' An agent immediately knows this produces a new objective entity. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling aureon_update_objective or aureon_restore_objective, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated – the note that targetSymbol and automationMode are locked and require recreation hints at the create-vs-update boundary, but the description never names aureon_update_objective as the alternative for modifying existing objectives or states prerequisites.

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