agy_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that 'dangerously_skip_permissions must be true when supplied' but doesn't disclose side effects, destructive potential, or behavior of each action. The term 'Manage' is vague.

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?

Very short (2 sentences), but the first sentence is functional and the second provides a constraint. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it insufficiently informative.

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?

Given 12 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, per-action behavior, or default behaviors beyond the dangerous_permissions note.

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 adds no meaning to the 12 parameters except a note about one parameter. It fails to explain what each parameter does or how they relate to the actions.

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 it manages bridge scheduler goals and lists specific actions (create, start_target, status), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_run_start and agy_review_branch.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage hint is about 'dangerously_skip_permissions', but it doesn't explain when to choose agy_goal over agy_run_* or agy_review_* tools.

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