goal_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add a meaningful behavioral clarification: parallelism is capped per goal rather than by token budget, and the limiting factor is simultaneous changes. However, it does not disclose effects like whether existing settings are overwritten, permission requirements, or reversibility, which would be useful for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying a subtle point about parallelism. It is appropriately concise.

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?

This is a mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to convey more context. It explains the max_parallel concept but does not mention return behavior, error conditions, what happens to existing values, or any necessary prerequisites. For a tool with four parameters, including one undocumented name parameter, the description is not complete enough.

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%, so the description needs to add some meaning beyond the schema. It does clarify max_parallel by explaining the per-goal parallelism model, which is not in the schema. However, it does not add meaning for 'name' or cwd, and priority already has a schema description ('Lower is worked first'). The description helps but only partially compensates for the coverage 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 a clear operation ('Set') on a specific resource ('a goal's priority and how many of its features may be worked at once'). This is precise enough to separate it from goal_list, goal_show, goal_refine, and other goal-related siblings. It does not name an alternative, but the operation is distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The second sentence explains a semantic detail about parallelism rather than providing usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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