update_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 "目標を更新" reveals none of the behavioral traits — whether the update is partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, whether it validates enum values in 'type', 'status', or constrained ranges in progress/confidence/importance, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. With zero accompanying annotations, this is a critical gap for a mutation tool.

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?

At a single phrase (4 characters in Japanese), the description is maximally terse, which could be seen as concise. However, under-specification is not conciseness — it is a single phrasing with no elaboration of behavior, usage constraints, or anything the agent needs to know beyond the tool's basic name/resource identity.

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?

Despite the schema documenting nested structures (milestones with {title, done, date}, metadata arbitrary object), the description does nothing to clarify semantics beyond raw field names. With no output schema and no annotation context, the description leaves the agent guessing about update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), return values, and error conditions. For a 2-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, this is insufficient.

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 50% (the two top-level params id and data have descriptions, and nested fields are described). The description itself adds no parameter information, leaving the schema to carry the burden. Under the baseline rule, with 50% coverage, the description falls between needing to compensate and being redundant. It adds no semantics beyond the schema.

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 "目標を更新" (Update goal) expresses a clear verb+resource intent. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_goal and delete_goal since "更新" means update. However, it doesn't elaborate on scope—what fields or aspects of the goal can be updated—so it relies entirely on the input schema for detail.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like update_episode, update_project, and update_achievement, there is no indication of what distinguishes a 'goal' update or what conditions apply (e.g., can completed goals be updated? are there conflicts with deleting vs. updating?). No when/when-not guidance is present.

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