manage_objective

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that delete cascades to all key results under the objective, states the return behavior for each action, and lists failure conditions. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded. It states the core purpose first, then organizes usage guidance into labeled sections (USE WHEN, Actions, Returns, FAILS WHEN, WARNING). Every sentence adds actionable information without 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: supported actions, required parameters per action, return values, failure modes, and the destructive cascade effect. The remaining parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema.

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 meaningful action-to-parameter mapping: create requires name, while update/delete require objective_id. This clarifies conditional parameter usage beyond the schema's individual field 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 precise verb and resource: 'Create, update, or delete an objective.' It clearly identifies the three supported actions and their target resource, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like manage_key_result or manage_launch.

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 'USE WHEN' section provides concrete trigger phrases and the 'FAILS WHEN' section gives explicit conditions to avoid. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the action mapping and failure conditions give clear practical guidance.

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