tgtrack_update_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'update' and 'optionally create', but does not disclose behavior when the goal doesn't exist, required permissions, or side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 in Russian, front-loading the action. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, though a bit brief.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/failure behavior, or provide sufficient context for a tool that modifies an integration.

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 60%, providing descriptions for goalName, goalValue, and needToCreateGoal. The description adds context by linking 'name/goal value in Metrica' to the parameters, but does not cover chatID or linkID. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'integration goal in Metrica', and mentions optional creation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tgtrack_create_integration, which handle creation only.

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 implies usage for updating or optionally creating a goal, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tgtrack_create_integration. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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