Create a goal

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the authorization requirement, which is useful but does not disclose other behaviors like idempotency or error conditions.

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 very short and to the point, but it omits essential parameter information, making it under-specified rather than concise. It could be structured better to include parameter details.

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?

Given the complexity of the input (nested objects, many optional fields, enums) and low schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the structure or requirements, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It provides no explanation of the body or path parameters, their required fields, or the meanings of properties like level, status, or parentId. This is a critical gap.

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 'Create a goal' and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_patch_goals_by_id (update) or pc_delete_goals_by_id (delete), relying solely on the verb.

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 mentions an authorization class ('board_or_agent'), providing some guidance on who can use it. However, it lacks any context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.

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