direct_set_priority_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses that this is a WRITE operation and that the API does not support REMOVE, plus states allow_write=true as a required flag. However, it does not explicitly state that setting goals will overwrite existing ones, which is a critical behavior for a SET operation.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the final sentence 'Prefer payment-heavy; avoid max-conv on form alone' is somewhat disconnected and could be considered extraneous for tool invocation, though it does provide useful guidance on choosing goals.

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 write tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when the tool executes (e.g., whether existing goals are replaced), how 'dry_run' interacts, or any prerequisites or error conditions. The 'no REMOVE' limitation is noted, but overall an AI agent would lack sufficient context to invoke this tool confidently.

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 low (40%), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the 'goals' parameter by specifying the array structure of {goal_id, value_rub} and that weights are in rubles. However, it does not explain 'dry_run' or 'campaign_id' beyond the schema, and it repeats 'allow_write=true' which is already in the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a WRITE operation for PriorityGoals, and provides the structure of the goals parameter. It differentiates from direct_set_max_conv by mentioning 'no REMOVE in API' and by advising to 'avoid max-conv on form alone', though this is more about goal selection than tool selection.

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 implies usage when you need to set priority goals via the WRITE label and allow_write=true, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct_set_max_conv. The advice 'Prefer payment-heavy; avoid max-conv on form alone' is about goal values, not tool choice.

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