create_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the exclusive-or validation and the goal_exists failure for duplicate names, but it doesn't mention required permissions, side effects beyond creation, or what the success response looks like.

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 sentences front-load the purpose and then efficiently pack the cardinality rule, operator definitions, and duplicate-name behavior. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus the rich schema documentation cover how to construct any valid goal and what to expect on a duplicate. It doesn't mention the success return value, but that's a minor gap for a create operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics by grouping event_name, path+operator, and scroll_depth as exclusive alternatives, and by clarifying what the operator values mean. This goes beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a goal to a site') and immediately defines the goal resource as one of three concrete types (custom event, page path, scroll depth). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_goal, list_goals, and create_funnel.

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?

It provides explicit construction rules: choose exactly one of the three goal types, not several, and gives the operator mapping. It also warns about duplicate names. It doesn't explicitly say 'use update_goal for modifying an existing goal,' but the create/update distinction is implied by the sibling set.

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