Edit Goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: 'Only provided fields change' (PATCH semantics, unset fields are not cleared or nulled). That matters for an agent that might otherwise fear data loss. It says nothing about permissions, validation behavior on invalid direction/unit values, or reversibility, so the disclosure is real but incomplete.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its partial-update semantics front-loaded. Ideal density for the space available.

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 explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the description is far too thin. The absence of an enum on direction and the untyped semantics of target_amount/threshold_pct are exactly the gaps an agent cannot resolve from structured data alone.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Any field' gestures at a field set but names none of the six domain-specific fields (direction, target_amount, threshold_pct, timezone_name, unit, name), leaving their meaning, formats, and interdependencies (e.g., direction's allowed values, since the schema declares a bare string with no enum) undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Update any field on an existing goal'), which is clearly distinct from add_goal and delete_goal by its mutation scope. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, edit_entry, or acknowledges that it operates only on goals, not entries.

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 guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives appear. The phrase 'existing goal' weakly implies the goal must already exist and directs creation elsewhere, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over edit_entry or how to obtain a valid goal_id.

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