Delete Goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default mutation is soft (active=0, history kept) and that hard_delete destroys both the goal and its entries. It omits permission requirements, reversibility of the soft delete, and any rate/confirmation behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the default behavior front-loaded ahead of the optional override. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the destructive/soft-delete semantics are covered. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it is nearly complete, missing only permission/irreversibility caveats.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: hard_delete is explained with its default (false) and divergent effects, including the cascading entry deletion. goal_id is left self-evident by name/type.

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+resource ('Remove a goal') and immediately qualifies the scope with soft vs hard deletion. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling delete_entry, leaving slight ambiguity about which resource is targeted.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent when to reach for hard_delete=True ('to permanently remove the goal AND its entries'), but gives no guidance on when to prefer soft delete over hard delete, nor any prerequisites or alternatives versus sibling delete tools.

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