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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not obligated to restate the safety profile, but it also fails to disclose what is destructive or what happens on a stale version. 'Preserving its stable ref' adds one genuine piece of context (the identity is retained), yet it is silent on partial-vs-full update semantics, conflict handling, and reversibility.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is structurally clean, but the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by efficient phrasing.

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 non-idempotent mutation with a required version token and no output schema, the description omits the two things an agent most needs: what fields may be changed and how expected_version must be supplied. It is not complete enough to call the tool correctly without reading the schema.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: expected_version (the required optimistic-concurrency token) is never explained, and the updatable field set (title, status, due_date, description, order_index) goes unnamed. Only the preservation of milestone_id is hinted at via 'stable ref'.

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 ('update... consulting milestone') with a scope qualifier ('owned') that hints at ownership requirements. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as update_consulting_deliverable, update_consulting_engagement, or update_consulting_client, and never says which fields are updatable, so the agent must open the schema to learn the surface.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (ownership, expected_version matching), and no routing to alternatives. The phrase 'owned consulting milestone' is the only usage signal, and it is left implicit.

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