Add Goal

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It explains parameter semantics but discloses nothing about behavior: no auth/permission requirements, no duplicate-handling or uniqueness rules, no reversibility or error behavior 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?

Purpose leads, followed by tightly scoped parameter explanations with no filler sentences. The multi-line parameter listing is slightly unconventional in body text but each line earns its place.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that need not be explained. However, for a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves required-parameter semantics and all behavioral context (duplicates, permissions, defaults interaction) unaddressed.

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. It gives genuinely useful semantics for the ambiguous parameters (direction values, threshold_pct direction-dependent meaning, IANA timezone examples), but leaves the three required parameters name, unit, and target_amount completely undefined — notably 'unit' has no format or example.

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 ('Create a new daily goal to track') that separates it from edit_goal, delete_goal, and list_goals by the add/edit/delete/list verb distinction. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope, but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description never says when to add a new goal versus editing an existing one, nor what happens if a goal with the same name already exists. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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