crystal_goal_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a state-mutating tool. It names the target states but says nothing about permissions required, whether transitions are reversible, whether concluding a goal affects open tasks, or what side effects occur.

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?

One compact sentence with no redundancy, and the core action plus the outcome options are front-loaded. Slightly dense but nothing wasted.

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?

Adequate minimum for a state-transition tool: it conveys the action, the target states, and the optional summary. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should have covered transition legality and side effects on related tasks; those gaps leave the agent under-informed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the enum values. The description adds only a loose conceptual mapping ('reopen' → in_progress, 'abandon' → concluded_abandoned), which is mild value on top of a fully-covered schema — the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource — transitioning a crystal's top-level goal status — and enumerates the three transitions (conclude successfully, abandon, reopen). It implicitly distinguishes itself from crystal_task_transition by scoping to the 'top-level goal', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 enumerated transition options imply what the tool is for, but there is no statement of when to choose it over crystal_task_transition, no preconditions (which current statuses permit a transition), and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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