fow_promote_milestone

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the observable effect ('Records planned milestone scope') and a hard failure condition (nonempty acceptance_evidence is rejected). It does not discuss retry/idempotency behavior despite idempotentHint=false, though the request_id parameter description in the schema partly covers that.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the alternative route, then labeled Prerequisites/Effects lines that scan quickly. The trailing 'Exact help' boilerplate with the operation_name substitution instruction is lower-value and slightly bloats an otherwise tight definition.

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 10-parameter governed mutation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, effect, rejection rule, and the sibling alternative, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around failure/retry semantics, which the request_id schema description only partly addresses.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for the two highest-risk inputs: acceptance_evidence is a 'reserved compatibility input' that must stay empty, and the requirement/dependency/policy inputs are framed as prerequisites the caller must supply. That is useful routing information, though no syntax or format detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create planned milestone scope') and immediately names the contrasting sibling ('Actual result acceptance uses fow_accept_milestone'), so the agent can separate scope planning from acceptance without opening either schema. The scope is further bounded by the inputs it draws from (requirements, dependencies, entry/exit/risk policies).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Create planned milestone scope...'), when-not (rejects nonempty acceptance_evidence; promotion does not accept the result), and the alternative route (fow_accept_milestone). It also answers the invocation-shape question directly: 'Single operation; call directly without an operation argument.'

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