Update savings goal

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with an update operation, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the update is partial or full-replacement, what happens to omitted fields like the nested 'target', whether permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so it is efficient. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, which caps the score.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with a nested object and four required fields, the description omits the semantics that matter most: partial vs. full update behavior and the treatment of omitted fields. The existing output schema means return values need not be described, but the mutation contract itself is not covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the nested target.currency and target.minorUnits, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no semantics of its own, notably nothing about whether omitting 'target' clears an existing target amount.

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 verb and resource ('Update ... savings goal'), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, with 'existing' the only added information. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as savings_goal_create, savings_goal_delete, savings_goal_deposit, or savings_goal_withdraw, nor does it say which fields are updatable.

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 sibling goal tools, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens if the goal does not exist. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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