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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds the state-dependent refusal rule tied to milestone approval, which is genuinely new behavioral context. The closing warning about not inventing unsaved deliverables is also non-obvious, though permissions and side effects remain unstated.

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 core action before the conditional rule. The final warning sentence is slightly cryptic but still earns its place as a guard against fabricating records.

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, and the approval-gated refusal rule covers the main behavioral surprise. The gap is parameter documentation: with 0% schema coverage, an agent gets no guidance on the UUID/string formats or length limits of the four required inputs.

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 all four required parameters, so the schema contributes no semantics. The description mentions none of milestoneSetId, milestoneId, title, or detail by name or format, adding only a weak hint that a milestone linkage exists. It fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save one deliverable') and scopes it ('belongs to a milestone'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like save_work_item and save_acceptance_criterion. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 description supplies a real precondition (extra deliverables are refused after milestone approval until an accepted add_deliverable suggestion) which tells the agent when the call will fail. However it never states when to use save_deliverable versus save_work_item or save_acceptance_criterion, and no alternatives are named.

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