goal_define

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this creates a new goal, warns that near-duplicates fragment the queue, and explains the conversational source of the name. It does not mention return values or duplicate-handling behavior, but for a simple create operation the stated behavior is substantial and useful.

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?

Three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence carries operational value: timing, naming philosophy, prerequisite, and next step. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: when to call it, what name semantics to follow, what to check first, and what to do immediately after. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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%: cwd is well documented in the schema, but name has no schema description. The description compensates for name by explaining its conceptual origin — it comes out of the conversation, not user invention. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string field.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a goal', then adds distinctive constraints: 'that does not exist yet' and 'at the END of a definition session'. It also differentiates from nearby goal tools by explaining that the name emerges from conversation rather than being supplied up front, which separates it from goal_set and goal_refine.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only at the end of a definition session, and only for goals that do not yet exist. It prescribes a prerequisite ('Check goal_list first') and a mandatory follow-up ('Follow immediately with goal_refine'), making the intended workflow unambiguous.

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