Update milestone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say which attributes are mutable, whether state_event can close a milestone, or whether omitted fields are preserved.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to front-load.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides no operational detail. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing the semantics of every field.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Critical ambiguity—such as why both milestone_id and title exist, or what the opaque `data` object and `state_event` do—is left entirely unexplained.

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 restates the tool name and title nearly verbatim ("Update a project milestone"), adding only the scope word "project." It gives no indication of what fields can be changed or how it differs from gitlab_create_milestone, gitlab_delete_milestone, or gitlab_get_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the create/delete/get milestone siblings, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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