create_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Create a new goal' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, what the response contains, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While it's severely under-specified in terms of content, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted text. The extreme brevity represents efficient communication, even if the content is inadequate.

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 this is a mutation tool (creating new goals) with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest this is part of a task/goal management system, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'goal' represents in this system, how it relates to tasks, what happens after creation, or what the agent should expect as a result. The description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Create a new goal' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without providing meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of goal (software development goal as indicated in the schema), what system it creates it in, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'add_tasks' or 'complete_task_status'. The description lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool's purpose.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'add_tasks' (which might add tasks to existing goals) or 'get_tasks' (which retrieves tasks). The agent receives no help in determining when this specific creation tool is appropriate.

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