upsert_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create or update' without detailing that an existing id would trigger an update, what fields are overwritten, whether any side effects occur, or any error conditions. No behavioral traits beyond the bare operation are disclosed.

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 with no unnecessary words, front-loading the purpose effectively. However, it is so brief that it leans toward under-specification rather than refined conciseness, losing a point for not including any structural cues or supplementary context.

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 an upsert tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It omits how existence is determined, what happens to optional fields like notes or due_date, the format of the response, and any constraints on values. The minimal description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to any of the 7 parameters. It does not mention id, title, status, amounts, due_date, notes, or any parameter-specific semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-covered parameter details.

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 tool's function: 'Create or update a financial goal' with examples like debt payoff and savings targets. This is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively conveys the core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or mention the upsert semantics beyond the phrase 'create or update'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_goals. It does not state prerequisites, when to choose create vs update, or when to prefer a different tool. The only implied usage is that you'd use it to manage goals, but no explicit or contextual guidance is given.

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