Update Milestone

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states 'update' implying mutation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, error handling (e.g., if milestone_id doesn't exist), or behavior when partial updates are made. The description lacks critical behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no superfluous words. Front-loaded with core action and resource. Every word earns its place. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple update tool with 4 parameters, a good schema, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It could mention that 'notes' can be added, but the schema already covers it. Slightly incomplete regarding behavioral aspects, but overall adequate.

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% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description restates updating status/completion, adding marginal value. It does not elaborate on the 'notes' parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'career roadmap milestone', and specifies the updatable fields (status, completion percentage). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'update_skill' or 'update_project_status'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other update tools, so it misses top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid using it, or comparison to sibling tools. The description is silent on usage context.

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