set_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only offers a high-level operation list. It does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens to existing goals during update, decompose, or abandon operations.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core operations and resource. The verb list is slightly redundant because 'manage' encompasses the other verbs, but there is no filler or wasted space.

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 tool with 15 parameters, 6 enum actions, nested subgoals, and no output schema, this sparse sentence is far from complete. It leaves out action-specific parameter requirements, return format, and how this tool fits with sibling tools.

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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain action, id, parent_id, subgoals, status, and related fields. It provides none of that; only the phrase 'hierarchical goals and task DAGs' vaguely hints at parent/subgoal relationships.

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 identifies the resource (hierarchical goals and task DAGs) and names several concrete operations: register, update, and decompose. This is clearer than a tautology, but the trailing 'manage' is broad and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like manage_intentions or replan.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replan or manage_intentions. The description does not state which action to choose under which circumstances, nor does it mention preconditions or exclusions.

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