Set goals

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the important behavioral requirement of explicit user intent, which aligns with the idempotent nature. 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 consists of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage, with no redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter patterns, and intent requirement. It could mention error handling or validation, but it is sufficiently complete for a setter tool.

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?

With 90% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the flat vs nested parameter patterns and the role of explicit_user_intent, providing clarity beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Set local calorie, macro, and hydration goals') and the resource ('goals'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nourish_get_goals and nourish_goal_progress.

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 usage context: it should be used after explicit user intent, and requires explicit_user_intent: true. It also explains the two parameter styles (daily object vs flat shortcuts). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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