set_reading_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation ('create or update') but fails to explain whether it overwrites existing goals, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. However, it may be slightly too brief given the tool's complexity. Still, no wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error handling, and update semantics. It currently lacks essential behavioral details for a mutation 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds a high-level summary ('target, metric, dates, and optional description/privacy') but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create or update'), the resource ('reading goal'), and the key parameters (target, metric, dates, optional description/privacy). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with books, lists, journals, etc., which are mentioned in the context.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_reading_goal' or other mutation tools. It omits when to create vs. update, or any prerequisites or exclusions. No sibling differentiation is offered.

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