complete_milestone

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a key behavioral trait: outcomes become permanent project history visible to future sessions, implying irreversibility. But it does not disclose side effects like whether the milestone becomes locked, permission needs, or what happens on errors.

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 optimally concise: two sentences, the first stating the core action, the second noting the key consequence. Every word adds value, making it highly scannable and information-dense without fluff.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the primary action and the permanence of outcomes. However, it omits details about return values, error conditions, or whether a completed milestone can be reopened, leaving some gaps for a tool that records lasting history.

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 schema coverage is 100% but generic ('Results summary' for outcomes). The description enriches the outcomes parameter by stating it records 'what was accomplished' and becomes permanent, giving it contextual meaning beyond the schema. Milestone_id remains self-explanatory but no additional elaboration needed.

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 a specific action (close) on a specific resource (milestone) and adds the purpose of recording accomplishments. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_milestone or remove_milestone, and the permanence note frames its unique role.

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?

Usage timing is implied: use when a milestone is done and needs to be closed with outcomes recorded. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' or exclusion of update_milestone, leaving some ambiguity about the exact boundary between this and other milestone tools.

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