anon_patch_milestones_milestone_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: the required project:manage scope and the null-to-cancel semantics for completedAt, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose, permission, field semantics, then endpoint and path note. The included URL line adds useful orientation with little waste, though '字段同创建' leans on an external reference.

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 mutating, non-output-schema tool whose annotations cover safety, the description supplies the key missing pieces: auth scope, partial-update assumption, and the completedAt cancellation rule. It omits return behavior and whether omitted fields are preserved, but the core call requirements are present.

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%, and the description compensates partially: it notes all body fields are optional, explains completedAt=null semantics, and clarifies that projectId must not be sent (derived from the API key). It does not explain the meaning or format of date, title, stageId, or description, so the nested body remains partly opaque.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('更新里程碑' / update milestone), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling delete/get/complete variants. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

It gives useful context: requires project:manage permission, and passing completedAt=null cancels completion (routing away from the dedicated complete endpoint). However, it never states when to prefer this PATCH over anon_post_milestones_milestone_id_complete or how it interacts with the create endpoint beyond 'fields same as create'.

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