update_goal

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

The description discloses that it 'Records a goal_update event so the goal's history is preserved,' providing side-effect context. With no annotations, this is valuable, but it does not explain behavior when optional parameters are omitted (e.g., whether status is cleared or unchanged).

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 two sentences: a clear purpose, an inline signature, and a side-effect note. It is front-loaded with no filler or 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?

The description covers the main action and side effect, but leaves ambiguity about omitted optional parameters and the requirement of an existing goal. It also doesn't discuss error conditions. For a simple 4-parameter tool, this is a visible gap.

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?

The signature adds semantics not in the schema: status enum ('in_progress'|'done') and progress range (0-100). This compensates for 0% schema coverage. However, it does not define the meaning of null defaults or whether omitted params are ignored.

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 'Move a goal's status/progress' with a specific verb and resource. The inline function signature and allowed values further clarify its purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like list_goals and record_batch.

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 usage is implied: to update a goal's status or progress. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternative tools, exclusions, or prerequisites. It lacks a clear 'use when' vs. 'use instead' statement.

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