Set Codex Agent Goal

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotence, and destructive behavior. The description adds that the goal is persistent and attached to a worker thread, but it does not clarify important behaviors such as whether null values clear fields or how an update interacts with an existing goal.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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?

With four parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and a family of closely related sibling tools, the one-sentence description is too thin. Missing parameter semantics and usage context make it incomplete for reliable tool selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no meaning for status, agentId, objective, or tokenBudget. An agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correctly invoking this tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set or update') and identifies the resource ('persistent app-server goal attached to a worker thread'). It is clear enough to distinguish this from a message-send or status-check tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'persistent app-server goal' implies when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related tools like agent_steer or agent_send. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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