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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the detail 'preserving its stable ref', which implies identity preservation during updates, but no other behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects) are disclosed. The contribution is marginal.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence, which is front-loaded and efficient. However, its brevity sacrifices useful details. While concise, it does not fully earn its place due to missing critical information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, 2 required, 0% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update behavior, meaning of 'stable ref', or any side effects. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description alone is incomplete.

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 does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., milestone_id, expected_version, status enum, order_index). The description fails to add any parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'owned consulting milestone', adding specificity with 'preserving its stable ref'. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update_consulting_deliverable or update_consulting_engagement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage. Given many sibling update tools, explicit usage guidelines are needed.

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