Goals Create Goal

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description's 'may create or update Monarch data' adds little beyond what annotations already convey. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens on duplicate names, and it ignores the openWorldHint signal.

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 and front-loaded with the verb and resource, but the second sentence is generic and adds little value. It is concise but under-specified for a tool with 11 configurable parameters, so it achieves only minimum viability.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and rich sibling context, yet the description supplies only a two-sentence summary. Missing crucial details include goal type semantics, date and amount formats, relationship to budget/account linking, and expected response shape. The description is inadequate for an agent to correctly configure a call without guessing.

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 18%, and the tool description provides no parameter explanations. With 11 parameters and only two described in the schema, the agent is left without meaning for crucial fields like goal_type, target_amount, priority, target_date, and planned_monthly_contribution. The description completely fails to compensate for this gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create goal.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like goals_list_goals, goals_get_goal, and goals_update_goal. The added note 'may create or update Monarch data' slightly muddies the create-only purpose, but the core intent remains unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using goals_update_goal for existing goals, goals_archive_goal for archiving, or any prerequisite conditions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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