Goals Update Goal Event

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

The description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which conveys a non-obvious side effect beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. However, it is vague about what data gets created, when creation happens instead of update, or what the broader consequences are, so it provides only modest additional transparency.

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, but the second sentence, 'This may create or update Monarch data,' is vague and does not add concrete value. It is compact but under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 6-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description omits when to use it, what the event fields mean, and what response shape to expect. It provides only basic purpose and a vague side-effect note, leaving significant gaps for an agent choosing and invoking it correctly.

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 33%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. Required event_id, date, notes, and include_in_budget are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 specific verb and resource, 'Update goal event', which is enough to identify the target object as distinct from tools like goals_update_goal or goals_delete_goal_event. However, it does not clarify what a 'goal event' is or how this tool differs from goals_contribute_to_goal or goals_withdraw_from_goal, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions that would select this over related goal tools. The only implied context is the resource name, which is not enough to reliably route an agent.

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