add_goalAppend a goal to the end of the roadmap with an optional initial task list. Track the outcome in the shared markdown record without claiming it.
Add a Goal to the end of the Roadmap, with an optional initial Task list. Does not claim it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | No | ||
| title | Yes | The outcome, such as 'Ship OAuth login'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behaviors: the goal is appended at the end of the Roadmap, and creation leaves it unclaimed. It says nothing about permissions, whether the task list is created atomically, or what identifies the new goal afterwards.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, and the discriminating fact ('Does not claim it') is placed last where it lands hardest. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.
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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essentials: what is created, where it goes, the optional payload, and its post-creation state. The remaining gap is the claim workflow, which is left implicit rather than explained.
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 50%: the nested task fields are well documented in the schema, while the 'tasks' array itself has no description. The description adds that the task list is optional and 'initial', which is real semantic value, but it does not explain the relationship between goal and tasks beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Add a Goal') plus the placement scope ('to the end of the Roadmap') and the optional payload. It also pre-empts the most likely sibling confusion by noting it does not claim the goal, though it never names claim_goal directly.
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 negation 'Does not claim it' implies claim_goal is the follow-up step, but the description never states when to use this versus claim_goal or release_goal, nor any prerequisite. Usage is only inferable from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.