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

Annotations cover the operation profile (mutation, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds non-obvious lifecycle constraints beyond them: post-approval refusals and the dependency on an accepted add_work_item suggestion. It omits any note on validation limits or error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 and purpose, and every sentence carries a distinct constraint. No filler or repetition.

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, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% parameter schema coverage and no explanation of the two ID fields, the definition leaves a real gap for an agent that must decide what to supply.

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% for all three parameters. The description hints at the milestone linkage ('under a milestone') and the payload ('one piece of work'), but never explains what milestoneId versus milestoneSetId mean or how they relate, so it does not 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 states a specific verb+resource ('save one piece of work under a milestone') and clarifies the downstream purpose ('so it can later be marked done'), which distinguishes it from the sibling mark_work_done. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition chain: work must be saved before it can be marked done, and after milestone approval new work is refused until an accepted add_work_item suggestion. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of naming explicit alternatives for saving versus defining.

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