goalstory_update_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'story/belief modes that influence how stories are generated' hints at side effects, but this is vague. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists key fields. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core fields from side effects).

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 8 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or important constraints like validation rules for fields. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description lists the updatable fields (name, status, description, outcomes, evidence, story/belief modes), which aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond it. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('goal details'), and lists specific fields that can be updated (name, status, description, outcomes, evidence, story/belief modes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like goalstory_create_goal (creation) and goalstory_destroy_goal (deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like goalstory_update_scheduled_story or goalstory_update_step. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing goal ID), exclusions (e.g., what fields cannot be updated), or comparisons to other update tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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