gsd_complete_milestone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states actions ('Archive', 'prepare') but does not explain what archiving entails, whether it is reversible, what state changes occur, or any requirements (e.g., milestone must already be complete). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse. Despite being short, it earns its place by conveying the core purpose without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's role in a project management workflow and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits context about when the milestone must be complete, what 'preparing for next version' involves, and any side effects on related data. The tool feels under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'version' with a clear description ('Version tag (e.g. 1.0.0)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal additional meaning, only implicitly connecting the version to the 'next version' concept, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics.

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 specific verbs ('Archive', 'prepare') and clearly identifies the resource (completed milestone) and the purpose (next version). It distinguishes from siblings like gsd_new_milestone and gsd_phase_complete by focusing on milestone archival, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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. It implicitly suggests use after a milestone is complete, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely action-oriented without any 'use when' or 'instead of' direction.

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