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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that approving a draft 'is not a commitment,' clarifying the softness of the action, but says nothing about auth requirements, reversibility, or who may call it.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the guard condition. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 no explanation. For a two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the key guard condition adequately, though the milestoneSetId reference is unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of confirmed (only true after explicit freelancer approval), which is genuine added value beyond the schema's const true, but milestoneSetId is left entirely unexplained.

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: approving draft milestone definitions and acceptance criteria. It is distinguishable from siblings like define_milestone or save_acceptance_criterion, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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 real precondition — pass confirmed=true only after the freelancer explicitly approves — but frames it around parameter use rather than tool selection. No alternatives (accept_milestone_change, define_milestone) or when-not-to-use guidance is offered.

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