Goals Update Goal

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

The annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description's 'This may create or update Monarch data' restates this in vaguer terms and adds little concrete behavioral context, such as what happens to an existing goal, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects creation might entail.

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 brief and front-loaded with 'Update goal,' which is good, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. The boilerplate clause about Monarch data does not earn its place given how little actionable information is provided for a tool with 13 parameters.

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 high parameter count, multiple enums, and absence of an output schema, this description is far from complete. It does not explain which fields can be updated, what the response looks like, or how this relates to sibling goal operations, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool reliably.

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 only 15% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters, but it does not mention any of them. The schema itself leaves most parameters undescribed, so the agent receives no semantic guidance for goal_id, target_amount, status, priority, or other options.

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 the verb and resource clearly: 'Update goal.' This makes the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from goals_update_goal_priorities or goals_update_goal_event, and the clause 'This may create or update Monarch data' is vague and potentially confusing rather than clarifying.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related goal tools such as goals_update_goal_priorities, goals_archive_goal, or goals_update_goal_event. The description only provides a generic write warning and does not mention required prerequisites or selection criteria.

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