Goals Link Goal Account Balance

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, and the description adds a concrete warning that it 'may create or update Monarch data.' This usefully signals mutation and side effects beyond the raw boolean flags, though it does not specify exactly which data is created or updated.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence adds a safety-relevant side-effect warning. There is no filler or redundancy, though the brevity leaves out substantive guidance that would ideally accompany the tool.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with six parameters and no output schema, this description leaves too much unstated: parameter semantics, return shape, and when to use it relative to sibling goal tools. The side-effect warning is helpful, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the description contributes no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify how amount relates to use_entire_balance, whether amount is a target balance or a contribution, or how fields and output_mode shape the response. This is a significant gap for a tool with six parameters.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Link', and identifies the resource as a goal account balance, which makes the core action clear. It is distinct from the obvious sibling goals_unlink_goal_account, though it does not explain exactly what 'link goal account balance' means in terms of account and goal relationship.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like goals_unlink_goal_account, goals_contribute_to_goal, or goals_withdraw_from_goal. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the contexts in which linking an account balance is appropriate.

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