metrika_apply_goal

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'idempotent' adds nothing. 'readback' is a genuine extra signal (the write is followed by a state read), but what it returns or what an update overwrites is not explained.

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 and the routing constraint second. Minimal waste, though the parenthetical '(idempotent, readback)' is a dense aside rather than earned prose.

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. However, with a mutation tool carrying four annotation hints, 5 undocumented parameters, and an undefined 'operation' string, the description is too thin to let an agent call it confidently.

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 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. 'operation' is a free-form string with no enum and no listed values for this tool, and counter_id, goal_id, params, and idempotency_key are never explained.

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 pair and resource: 'create or update a Metrika goal', which distinguishes it from the read/prepare siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself against metrika_manage_apply or the prepare tools, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear exclusion: deletion is not done here and must route through metrika_manage_prepare(operation='goal_delete') with human approval. That names the alternative for one case, though it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over metrika_manage_apply.

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