create_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description gives zero information about side effects (e.g., whether creation requires authentication, whether duplicate titles are rejected, whether a profile association is mandatory, or what the created resource's state is). For a write tool, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no waste, but it's under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no front-loading of key details because there are no details to front-load. The brevity trades away useful behavioral and selection context.

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?

This is a create/mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a complex nested input (11 sub-fields in 'data'). The description does nothing to explain required fields, default values, validation, or what happens on creation. Given the complexity of the data object, the description is inadequate for guiding correct invocation.

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 50% with 2 top-level parameters. The schema itself documents 'data' as a nested object with well-described sub-fields (type, title, status, progress range, etc.), and the profile_id field includes a detailed description about account vs profile-scoped behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is already reasonably self-documenting, and the coverage covers the two top-level params despite the 50% figure applying to all nested fields.

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 '目標を新規作成' (Create new goal) clearly states a verb+resource (create a goal), but it's minimal and doesn't add anything beyond the name create_goal itself. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools beyond the obvious goal vs other resources, though the name already conveys this.

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?

There is essentially no usage guidance. The description doesn't explain when to use create_goal vs create_project or other create_* siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether a profile must exist first, whether profile_id is needed, or when to prefer other tools. The profile_id schema field hints at scoping but the description is silent.

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