Goals Contribute To Goal

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description only adds the vague note that it 'may create or update Monarch data.' This adds little beyond what annotations convey and does not disclose real behavioral consequences such as whether a transaction is created, whether funds move between accounts, or how include_in_budget affects budget data.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. The first sentence repeats the tool name and the second is a generic warning, so neither sentence provides substantive information worth its place.

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?

With eight parameters, a mutating action, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is dramatically incomplete. It fails to define the core operation, parameter roles, effect on budget, return value, or how it relates to goal contribution/withdrawal workflows.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it explains none of them. goal_id, account_id, amount, date, notes, and include_in_budget are left without meaning; an agent cannot tell whether amount is a currency amount, how it relates to the account, or what include_in_budget does.

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 'Contribute to goal' directly restates the tool name and title, so it is a tautology rather than an explanation. 'This may create or update Monarch data' is a generic side-effect note and does not clarify what contributing means or how it differs from siblings like goals_withdraw_from_goal or goals_link_goal_account_balance.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contributing money from an account, linking balances, withdrawing, or any condition that would select this tool over the many closely related goals_* operations.

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