Create a new goal at company, project, or agent level. Provide a title and optionally link it to a parent goal, project, or agent.
Create a new goal in the hierarchy (company, project, or agent level)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Goal title | |
| agentId | No | Associated agent ID | |
| parentId | No | Parent goal ID for nested goals | |
| projectId | No | Associated project ID | |
| description | No | Goal description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. It only says 'Create a new goal' and mentions the hierarchy levels; it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, return value, or behavior around duplicates or missing parent IDs. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and key contextual detail (hierarchy levels) efficiently. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to express the hierarchy levels through parameters. It does neither. An agent cannot tell whether a company-level goal requires omitting all IDs, or how parentId relates to projectId and agentId. This is a meaningful gap for a 5-parameter creation tool.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds the notion of hierarchy levels but does not map those levels to specific parameters like agentId, projectId, or parentId. It meets the baseline but does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding.
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 states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('goal'), and adds the hierarchical scope ('company, project, or agent level'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_agent, create_issue, and create_project. An agent can identify what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 implies the use case: when you need to create a goal, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention related tools such as list_goals or get_goal for verification. The guidance is minimal and left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.