Runn: update milestone

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the PATCH method and partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields change'), which is useful. However, it does not mention auth requirements, error handling, or what happens if the milestone does not exist, leaving some transparency 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. The additional clarifying clause about partial updates adds value without unnecessary verbosity. Every word 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?

Given that there are 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter documentation, usage scenarios, and any mention of return values or side effects. The PATCH endpoint and partial-update note help, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool confidently without additional inference.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. While field names (date, icon, note, title) are self-explanatory and the path includes projectId and milestoneId, the description adds no detail about allowed values, formats, or required versus optional fields beyond what the schema already provides. The general statement 'Only provided fields change' is too generic to compensate for the lack of parameter-specific guidance.

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 purpose: 'Update a milestone' with a specific REST endpoint (PATCH /projects/{id}/milestones/{milestoneId}). It uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_milestone or delete_milestone.

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 implies usage ('Update a milestone') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The addition of 'Only provided fields change' gives some context for partial updates, but there is no direct guidance on when to choose this over other milestone-related operations.

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