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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavioral gate — that a human approval must precede the call — which is real context beyond the annotations. It does not, however, describe what is actually mutated or whether the change is reversible, so with annotations carrying the safety profile this is a solid but not rich 3.

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?

Four tight sentences, all load-bearing, with the action front-loaded and the precondition/anti-misuse warning following in logical order. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the approval precondition and the applicability examples, leaving only the mutation consequences unstated — a minor gap for a three-parameter tool.

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 clarifies the meaning of `confirmed` ('Pass confirmed true only then'), which is useful, but says nothing about `changeId` or `milestoneSetId` beyond the schema's own uuid/ref typing. Partial compensation justifies the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Apply one suggested milestone change') and clarifies the scope with concrete examples (extra deliverable, new acceptance criterion, new saved work). It implicitly routes away from the sibling suggest_milestone_change by framing this as the 'apply' side, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('after the freelancer explicitly approves that change. Pass confirmed true only then') and a clear when-not ('Calling it is not a substitute for the freelancer's approval'). An agent knows exactly when this is appropriate versus the suggest_* sibling.

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