freelance_add_milestone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the contract must be owned by the organization and that no money is committed, which prevents misuse as a payment action. However, it does not mention required permissions, contract status constraints, side effects, or what happens after adding the milestone.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. The definition is front-loaded, followed by ownership scope and the key money caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important operational context: who can use it, ownership of the contract, and the fact that no payment occurs. The remaining gaps, such as contract status requirements or response details, are minor and don't block correct tool selection.

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 adds conceptual meaning by framing the milestone as a 'named piece of work' with an amount and due date, which maps to the input properties. However, the schema already provides descriptions for id, title, amount, and dueDate, and the description adds little beyond that, especially for the contract id and date format.

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 verb and resource ('Add a milestone to a contract') and defines what a milestone is: a named piece of work with an amount and due date. It also distinguishes itself from sibling payment actions by noting it 'commits no money,' which clearly separates it from fund_milestone and related 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?

The description gives clear context: client lane, contract ownership requirement, and HIRE scope. The 'commits no money' statement implies this is for the pre-payment setup stage, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as freelance_fund_milestone or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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