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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the required auth scope, which is useful context annotations cannot convey, but says nothing about whether deletion cascades to related records or is reversible.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing to trim.

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 single-parameter delete with annotations carrying the destructive/idempotent profile and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Only the omission of cascade/reversibility behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the UUID id. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Precise verb+resource (delete a project milestone) with the identifier type stated. It clearly distinguishes itself from create_project_milestone, update_project_milestone and list_project_milestones by name, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling delete tools like delete_project or delete_project_task.

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 states a prerequisite (project_milestones:write scope), which is genuine guidance, but gives no when-to-use vs. alternatives framing and no warning about irreversibility or cascading effects. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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