wp_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether an existing goal is overwritten, whether the waypoint must pre-exist, whether this persists across sessions, or whether navigation starts immediately — all material for a goal-setting mutation.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. But brevity here shades into under-specification rather than economy — the terseness removes information the agent needs rather than trimming redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Everything else is missing, though: no relations to the many waypoint/goal siblings, no parameter meaning, and no behavioral context for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single parameter "name" is undocumented. The description strongly implies "name" refers to a waypoint, but it never states whether it is a waypoint identifier, a goal label, or a coordinate string, so the critical ambiguity is unresolved.

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 verb-and-resource pairing is present ("Set a goal" + "waypoint"), so the general intent is understandable. However, the phrasing is ambiguous — it is unclear whether it sets a goal located at a waypoint or assigns a waypoint as a goal — and it does no work to distinguish itself from siblings like goal_coordinates, set_goal_block, or wp_list.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus goal_coordinates, set_goal_block, or clear_goal, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., must a waypoint already exist via wp_save). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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