complete_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the goal is deleted or merely flagged, whether the operation errors on no-match, or whether it completes all matches at once; 'Celebrate appropriately' is flavor text, not 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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The trailing 'Celebrate appropriately' is stylistic rather than informative, but it costs little space.

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?

Wrong — adjust: an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the schema is a single required string. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool, the ambiguous-match behavior is a meaningful omission.

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 0% (the schema only says 'text: string'), so the description must compensate. It does add the crucial detail that the value is a substring match rather than an exact ID, but it never says what field is matched against or how ambiguity is resolved.

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 ('check off a goal') and adds the matching rule ('matches by substring'), which separates it from set_goal (create) and current_goals (list). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The most important usage question for a substring-matched mutation — what happens when zero or several goals match — is left entirely unanswered.

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