set_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 disclose a key trait: persistence across compaction and new chats. It does not say whether goals accumulate, replace prior goals, or how many can exist, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a stateful 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?

It is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the most important persistence trait. There is no wasted text.

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, and the tool has only one parameter. However, the description omits sibling distinctions, parameter guidance, and accumulation/replacement semantics that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain what the `text` parameter should contain, its format, expected length, or whether it is a short objective statement. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 specific verb and resource: adding an objective to a persistent goal list. It implicitly distinguishes itself from `complete_goal` and `current_goals` by focusing on creation, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

The persistence note ('survives compaction and new chats') implies when this tool is useful, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus `complete_goal`, `current_goals`, or note-writing tools. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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