goal_advance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two meaningful invariants: leaf->done REQUIRES real evidence (no-self-certification) and parent status rolls up automatically. It does not cover permission/auth needs, idempotency, or what the mutation returns, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action and the critical evidence rule before the trigger list, with no filler. The multilingual trigger list is long but earns its place for routing; minor slack keeps it below a 5.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential operational rules (evidence gate, rollup, trigger scope). Remaining gaps like partial-payload and external_ref merge behavior are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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 10 parameters (including the note, payload merge, and status enum semantics). The description reinforces the evidence requirement for leaf->done but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Advance a node's status') and immediately scopes it with the rollup and evidence rules. An agent can distinguish it from goal_add/goal_list/goal_frontier without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition with concrete utterance examples ('xong rồi', 'done X', 'mark done'), plus a clear when-not rule ('Only call when the report maps to a tracked board item; ignore unrelated casual chatter'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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