close_milestones

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns a unified response with items array, counts, and per-item errors, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., state changes, irreversibility), required permissions, or error conditions like trying to close already closed milestones. The description provides basic but incomplete 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?

The description is three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and object. The second adds important detail about batch/single interface parity. The third specifies the return structure. No redundant or extraneous content, making it compact and efficient.

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 straightforward mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, batch capability, and return format. It lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., permissions, project context) and edge cases, but given the low complexity and schema coverage, it is largely sufficient. The return format description compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds that the tool is 'array-based' and that single-item and batch calls use the same interface, which is already inferable from the schema. It does not add meaningful details about parameter usage, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'close' with the resource 'milestones', clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reopen_milestones' and 'close_boards' by focusing on milestones and the closing action. The mention of 'array-based' and 'one or more' clarifies the scope.

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 the tool should be used to close milestones, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'reopen_milestones' or 'update_milestones'. The note about single-item and batch calls sharing the same interface is more about interface design than usage context. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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