Goals Update Goal

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

Annotations already declare the tool is mutating (not read-only) and not idempotent. The description adds 'may create or update Monarch data,' which is somewhat misleading and doesn't clarify actual behavior like whether it can create a goal if it doesn't exist.

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 a single sentence but includes vague and redundant language ('Update goal' restates the name). It could be more concise and informative.

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 high parameter count (14), low schema coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update scope, effects on existing data, or return value.

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 14%, and the description does not explain any of the 14 parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving many parameters like 'is_sinking_fund' or 'planned_monthly_contribution' unexplained.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate it's for updating a goal. However, the phrase 'This may create or update Monarch data' introduces ambiguity, as it's an update tool and there is a separate create goal sibling.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other goal-related tools like goals_create_goal or goals_archive_goal. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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