write client wording

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

Even though annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds real governance context beyond them: once approved, alternate wording is refused until an accepted revise_client_wording suggestion, and the assistant must not stray from this wording or the facts in read_milestone_set. That immutability-like constraint is exactly the behavioral detail annotations can't express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence carries a distinct rule (what it records, the refusal-after-approval constraint, the fact-sourcing limit). Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description supplies the important behavioral rules for a destructive write. The main remaining gap is the unexplained milestoneSetId.

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 0% and the description gives no explicit guidance on either parameter. The wording parameter is loosely implied ('what the assistant may tell the client'), but milestoneSetId is entirely unexplained and the 1-2000 length bound is never surfaced. With two undocumented params, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: recording the client-facing wording about milestones, done, completion, and payment release. An agent knows exactly what content this tool governs. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like define_milestone or declare_milestone_complete, so it falls short of a 5.

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 you use this to record governed client-facing wording, and notes the post-approval refusal rule referencing revise_client_wording. But it never states when/when-not to use this vs the many sibling tools, and revise_client_wording is not even in the sibling list, leaving the escalation path ambiguous.

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