complete_goal

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

The description mentions that descendants are also completed (子孫も連動), which is a behavioral trait beyond the parameter schema. However, there are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It lacks details on reversibility or confirmation requirements.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence adds critical info about side effects, which is good use of space.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic function and side effect. However, siblings include 'complete_task' and 'get_goal_detail', and the description does not help differentiate from them beyond the side effect. No information about return values or error states is provided.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no semantics for the goal_id parameter beyond what the schema provides (type string, required). Baseline 3 is given because parameter count is low (1) and the purpose is implied.

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 'ゴールを完了にする。子孫も連動。' clearly states the verb 'complete' and the resource 'goal' in Japanese. It also adds that descendants are affected, which distinguishes it from a simple completion action. However, being in Japanese may limit understanding for non-Japanese agents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternative completion tools like 'complete_task'. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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