projects_update_billing_milestoneUpdate a fixed-fee billing milestone. Setting status to 'invoiced' only marks the row - it does not raise an invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| due_date | No | ||
| sort_order | No | ||
| amount_type | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| amount_value | No | ||
| milestone_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a critical behavioral caveat not present in annotations: setting status to 'invoiced' only marks the row and does not raise an invoice. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and prevents a likely misconception. However, other behavioral details such as validation or side effects on related entities are not disclosed.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second immediately gives a high-value caveat. Every word earns its place.
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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no enums, this description is too sparse for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in most cases. The invoice caveat is helpful but does not cover the semantics, formats, or expected values of the majority of parameters.
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 there are no enums, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only clarifies the 'status' parameter for the 'invoiced' value. It provides no useful semantics for milestone_id, due_date, sort_order, amount_type, description, or amount_value, which is a significant gap.
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 states 'Update a fixed-fee billing milestone,' which is a specific verb and resource with a clarifying type qualifier. It is clearly distinct from create/delete/get billing milestone tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to differentiate them.
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 such as projects_create_billing_milestone, projects_delete_billing_milestone, or projects_update_invoicing. The verb 'update' is the only implicit usage signal, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.