create_key_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It only states the tool 'Adds' a key result, offering no behavioral details like side effects, idempotency, validation rules, or the nature of the operation. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. For a tool with 9 parameters and complex semantics, this oversimplification harms usability. It is not appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity (9 parameters), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It lacks information on return values, required prerequisites, error handling, and parameter relationships. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the provided description alone.

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 11% (only 'goal_id' has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for any of the 9 parameters, including the crucial 'type' enum, 'steps_start/end', 'unit', 'owners', etc. The agent is left with no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 uses the verb 'Add' and specifies the resource 'key result' with the clarification '(target) to a Goal.' This clearly indicates the tool creates a key result within a goal. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_goal' or 'update_key_result', though the intent is still discernible.

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 alternatives, such as requiring an existing goal or when to use 'update_key_result' instead. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or context about appropriate use cases.

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