goal_coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'set a goal' but never discloses whether this moves the agent, replaces an existing goal, requires a navigation routine, or is reversible. For a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. Brevity here works against completeness but not against structure.

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?

A state-changing tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and siblings that cover similar goal-setting territory. The description omits units/frame, the effect on an existing goal, and any routing guidance; the presence of an output schema excuses it only from describing return values.

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 x/y/z are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description does add one useful clarification: because all three are required-but-nullable, 'provide at least one coordinate' explains that nulls are permitted and at least one axis must be non-null. However, it gives no units, coordinate frame, or axis meaning.

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?

States a recognizable verb+resource ('set a goal to the specified coordinates'), but 'goal' is left undefined in a sibling set that already contains wp_goal, set_goal_block, and clear_goal. An agent cannot tell from the description how this goal differs from those, so it is vague rather than distinguishing.

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?

'Provide at least one coordinate' is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to use this instead of wp_goal, set_goal_block, or clear_goal, nor any prerequisite (e.g., whether a path must exist or the agent must be idle).

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