manage_objective

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses return values (created/updated objective or confirmation), failure conditions, and a critical warning that deletion removes all key results under the objective. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the summary, then organized into use cases, actions, returns, failures, and warning. It is efficient but slightly redundant with schema information, earning a 4.

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 behaviors, returns, and a critical warning. However, it does not explain partial updates (e.g., updating only some fields) or the role of the time_frame parameter. For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, this is a minor 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description reiterates that 'name' is for create and 'objective_id' for update/delete, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Create, update, or delete') and resource ('objective'), and differentiates from sibling manage_* tools by focusing on objectives. The examples ('Add Q1 objective', 'Update objective', 'Delete OKR') reinforce the purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use examples using 'USE WHEN' and lists failure conditions ('FAILS WHEN: create without name, update/delete without objective_id'). It also warns about cascading deletion, guiding the agent on proper invocation.

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