Goals Contribute To Goal

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which is largely redundant with the annotations. It omits behavioral details like side effects, required permissions, or return value behavior.

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 concise at two sentences, but the second sentence is vague and not actionable. It could be restructured to front-load the primary action and provide more useful constraints.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a contribution is, how the goal and account parameters relate, or what the tool returns.

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 22% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but adds no parameter details. The schema provides some descriptions (e.g., for 'fields' and 'output_mode'), but the description does not enhance understanding or usage of the 9 parameters.

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 'Contribute to goal' indicates a verb-resource action, but it is vague and does not specify what 'contribute' entails (e.g., adding funds, recording progress). It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like goals_create_goal or goals_update_goal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as goals_create_goal or goals_withdraw_from_goal. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual constraints.

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