Goals Link Goal Account Balance

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only behavior. The description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which provides some transparency about side effects, but it lacks specifics on what exactly is created or updated and does not disclose potential consequences like overwriting existing links.

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 very short at two sentences, which is concise but under-informative. It could include essential parameter details or usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage) and the existence of sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the linking operation, parameter effects, return behavior, or when to use this tool over others.

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 29% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the tool leaves seven parameters (including required ones like goal_id and account_id) completely unexplained. The description adds zero value to parameter semantics.

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 'Link goal account balance,' which is a verb+resource combination, but is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'goals_unlink_goal_account' or explain the linking concept. The added warning about creating or updating data provides minimal clarity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to related tools such as 'goals_contribute_to_goal' or 'goals_withdraw_from_goal.'

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