complete_milestone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, requires special permissions, or what side effects occur beyond marking complete.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes a simple Args section. It earns its place despite being brief.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks usage context and behavioral details. It would be more complete if it mentioned reversibility or relationship to 'uncomplete_milestone,' but the simplicity of the operation keeps it at a passing level.

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?

The description repeats the parameter name and adds 'numeric' to clarify the type, but the schema already defines 'milestone_id' as an integer. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but the single parameter is self-explanatory enough to warrant a baseline score.

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 clearly states the action: 'Mark a milestone as complete.' The verb 'Mark' and resource 'milestone' are specific, and the sibling tool 'uncomplete_milestone' confirms this is the inverse operation, distinguishing it from similar tools.

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 like 'uncomplete_milestone' or 'list_milestones.' The description only states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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