Assignment milestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — that free-form dates are parsed ("Dec 12", "in 3 weeks") and that milestones are spread between a start date and due date — but with no output schema it never describes what a returned milestone looks like (names, dates, sequencing), leaving the result shape opaque.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, followed by the date-format caveat and a single illustrative prompt. Nothing is redundant, though the leading "List" wastes the most prominent slot on a misleading verb.

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 5 parameters (3 required), full schema coverage and no output schema, most structured information is present elsewhere. The remaining gaps are material: no clarification of how this differs from `list_assignment_milestones`, and no hint of the return format for a generative planning tool whose output shape is otherwise undocumented.

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 100%, so `title`, `due_date`, `start_date`, `estimated_hours` and `steps` are all documented structurally — baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the natural-language date handling already stated in the schema, and the example illustrates the interplay of hours and due date, but adds no new meaning about `steps`, `share`, or `start_date`'s default behavior.

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 names a concrete resource (dated milestones splitting an assignment between start and due date) and the example prompt reveals that it *generates* a breakdown rather than retrieving stored data. However, it opens with the verb "List", which makes it easily confused with the sibling `list_assignment_milestones`; no sibling is named or differentiated, so an agent cannot reliably choose between the two from the description 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?

The example prompt ("Break my 6 hour essay due 2026-11-20 into milestones") implies the intended usage context — planning a large assignment with a due date. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `list_assignment_milestones`, `make_study_plan`, or `spaced_repetition_dates`, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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