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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description never discloses what an update can overwrite or destroy, nor that repeated calls are not idempotent. The approvals sentence adds org-level context beyond the annotations, but it is generic policy boilerplate that does not say whether this call enters an approval workflow or how it fails.

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 with no padding, and the functional statement leads. The second sentence is organization-level boilerplate that competes for attention without resolving the destructive-update question an agent actually needs answered.

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?

A destructive mutation with a nested payload and 0% schema coverage needs more: which fields are editable, what happens to omitted fields, and whether approval gating applies to this call. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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% and the nested `data` object has five undocumented properties, yet the description names none of them. "Server-owned fields are excluded" hints that some fields are immutable but does not say which, leaving the id/data contract entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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?

"Configure/edit milestone_column" restates the tool name rather than stating a specific verb plus resource outcome; the only added detail is that server-owned fields are excluded. It does not distinguish this from update_milestone, create_milestone_column, or reorder_milestone_columns, so an agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this versus reorder_milestone_columns (for ordering) or update_milestone (for milestone records), and no prerequisites are given. The approval sentence describes a policy mechanism but never says whether this tool itself triggers approval.

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