create_key_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool creates and returns a key result, and mentions the optional linking to tasks/lists for automatic tracking. This provides sufficient behavioral context, though permissions or side effects are not covered.

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?

Four short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives parameter guidance, the third optional features, and the fourth the return value. Ideal front-loading and structure.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key points: purpose, parameter selection, and return. It does not detail every parameter, but the schema does that. Lacks explanation of 'automatic tracking' mechanics, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to choose parameters based on measurement type (e.g., 'for numeric types, the start/end steps and unit') and linking to tasks/lists. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states the tool adds a key result (a measurable target) to a Goal. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_goal or update_key_result by specifying the action and resource. The verb 'Add' and the target 'key result' are precise.

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 explains when to use (to add a key result to a Goal) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention prerequisites like the Goal must exist. No alternatives are discussed, which is acceptable given the clarity but could be improved.

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