Goals Update Goal Priorities

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds only the generic statement 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which provides little concrete behavioral detail about side effects, ordering behavior, or what changes are applied.

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 is vague boilerplate that does not earn its place. It is not overly verbose, yet it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a critical parameter whose semantics are unclear, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine how goal_ids map to priorities, what the tool returns, or what side effects to expect.

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 67%, and the most important parameter, goal_ids, has no semantic description. The description does not clarify that the order of goal_ids likely determines priority, which is essential for correct invocation. Fields and output_mode are documented in the schema, but the key parameter is left ambiguous.

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 action ('Update goal priorities') on a specific resource, and the name distinguishes it from sibling goals tools. However, it does not explain what 'priorities' means or how the update is represented, so it stops short of a fully self-contained purpose.

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 alternatives like goals_update_goal, nor any mention of prerequisites or order semantics. The tool name implies its niche, but the description leaves all usage decisions to inference.

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