update_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly reveals the critical destructive-overwrite behavior: omitted fields are cleared, not kept. This is non-obvious and valuable. It does not cover other side effects, but for the main behavior this is sufficient.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the critical behavioral warning follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides the key overwrite warning but omits parameter semantics for most fields, usage context, and any mention of constraints or enum meanings. An agent would need to guess at several parameter purposes.

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 only 29%, with just site and goal_id documented. The description does not explain the meaning of name, path, operator, event_name, or scroll_depth, nor the operator enum values. 'Send the whole goal' is not parameter-level guidance and fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Replace' and resource 'a goal's definition,' clearly indicating this modifies an existing goal rather than creating or listing one. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_goal and list_goals, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus create_goal, update_funnel, or other sibling tools. The instruction to 'Send the whole goal' is about invocation mechanics, not about selecting the tool in context.

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