Goals Withdraw From Goal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'may create or update Monarch data' adds little beyond structured data. It does not disclose which Monarch entities are affected, whether the withdrawal is reversible, or any auth or side-effect details. There is no annotation contradiction, but the behavioral value added is minimal.

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 but under-specified. The first sentence merely paraphrases the title, and the second repeats a mutation hint already encoded by the annotations. It is not a case of efficient conciseness; it is a case of missing substance.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and a large family of goal-related sibling tools, this description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It lacks expected side effects, return shape, and parameter-level context, leaving the agent heavily reliant on 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 25%, and the description compensates for none of the gaps. It says nothing about goal_id, account_id, amount, date, notes, or include_in_budget, leaving key semantics like whether account_id is the source or destination of withdrawn funds entirely to inference.

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 names a specific action ('Withdraw') and resource ('goal'), so the core purpose is identifiable. However, it offers no functional detail and does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as goals_contribute_to_goal or goals_unlink_goal_account.

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. It never mentions that goals_contribute_to_goal is the inverse operation, nor does it explain what type of withdrawal scenario requires this tool. The generic 'may create or update Monarch data' sentence provides no selection context.

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