update_milestone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action (modify, advance status) and the allowed status sequence (pending→active→done). However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, partial update behavior, or what happens if a backward transition is attempted. This is a moderate disclosure but leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary verb ('Modify') and immediately conveys the key capabilities. Every phrase adds value, and the parenthetical status sequence is efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. It covers purpose and use cases, but it does not clarify how it differs from sibling complete_milestone, nor does it mention partial update semantics or response format. Given the 100% schema coverage, it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping 'phase scope/outcomes' to name/description fields and explaining the status transition sequence. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions and helps the agent understand the intent of each parameter.

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 tool's function: 'Modify milestone details or advance status (pending→active→done)'. It specifies the resource (milestone) and the actions (modify details, advance status), distinguishing it from siblings like update_task or update_vision. The mention of phase transitions and scope/outcomes further clarifies 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use to mark phase transitions or adjust phase scope/outcomes.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use complete_milestone instead, so it lacks the 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would earn a 5.

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