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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description correctly adds more value by explaining the precise consequence: issues survive but lose the milestone link. This is critical non-obvious behavior that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the side effect is stated concisely right after.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive operation, the description fully covers what the tool does, what happens to related issues, and what input is needed. The annotations fill in the remaining safety profile, so nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the param description 'The milestone id.' is sufficient. The tool description does not add new semantics for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a concrete resource 'a milestone', making the purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_sprint, delete_issue) by naming its unique effect on issues, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other definitions.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this to remove a milestone while keeping its issues intact. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the side-effect statement implies the appropriate scenario where this tool is the right choice.

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