goalstory_destroy_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('permanently removed' from input schema, 'Remove' in description) and adds valuable context about the scope of deletion ('all its associated steps and stories'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling, permissions needed, or what happens if the goal 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the operation, and the second provides critical usage guidance without any redundancy or fluff.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly stating the destructive nature and scope. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens on success/failure or if there are any prerequisites. The high schema coverage helps compensate, but for a tool that permanently removes data, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter well-documented as 'Unique identifier of the goal to be permanently removed.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Remove'), the target resource ('a goal and all its associated steps and stories'), and the scope ('from the user's journey'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'goalstory_destroy_step' and 'goalstory_destroy_scheduled_story' by specifying it removes the entire goal hierarchy, not just individual components.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance with 'Use with confirmation to prevent accidental deletion,' indicating when to use it (with user confirmation) and implying when not to use it (without confirmation). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like 'goalstory_read_goals' and update tools like 'goalstory_update_goal,' which are safer operations.

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