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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses the two-phase commit contract in detail: the call is proposed only, returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write occurs only after confirm_action. It also discloses the ownership scoping and the side effect that completion time follows a 'done' toggle.

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 sentences with a clearly labeled CONFIRMATION block; the core capability is front-loaded and the workflow warning is separated out. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the confirmation return payload, and it covers the mutation's safety model. The remaining gap is partial-update semantics: it never states whether omitted fields are left unchanged, which matters because only milestone_id is required.

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 carry the load, and it does give meaning to every parameter: milestone_id scopes to the caller's own milestone, title maps to 'retitle', position to reorder, and done to the completion toggle with its side effect. It omits that the non-id parameters are optional/partial-update and that milestone_id accepts either an integer or a string.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Edit one of the caller's milestones by id') and enumerates the three editable facets: retitle, reorder via 'position', and toggle 'done'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling complete_milestone, which overlaps with the 'done' toggle and could leave an agent unsure which to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by 'edit one of the caller's milestones by id' and the scope restriction 'Only the caller's own milestone is reachable', which tells the agent the access boundary. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., complete_milestone) for the completion case.

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