rybbit_create_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description merely restates the creation action and the purpose (tracking conversions) but does not disclose any side effects, required inputs beyond the schema, potential errors, or what the response will look like. For a create operation, this lack of additional context is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is informative, with no filler or repetition of information already present in the tool name or 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?

This is a create tool with 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema or annotations. The description is too minimal to provide contextual completeness; it does not clarify conditional parameter usage (e.g., eventName for event-based goals) or explain what the tool returns upon success. While the schema documents all fields, the description fails to tie things together or offer behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool effectively.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the mention of 'path-based or event-based' is already captured in the goalType enum. Thus, the description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 the tool creates a new goal for tracking conversions, specifying path-based or event-based types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_goals, rybbit_update_goal, and rybbit_delete_goal, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context that this tool is for creating new goals, which is obvious from the name and the 'Create a new goal' phrasing. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name alternatives, but the context is clear, and the sibling tool names (update_goal, delete_goal) imply the distinction without needing explicit guidance.

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