anon_post_milestones

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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/not-idempotent/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the authorization requirement (project:manage) and the implicit project scoping from the API key, which prevents the agent from fabricating a projectId. It says nothing about validation failures or response shape, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with no filler: action, permission, route, scoping clarification. The route line is mildly redundant with the tool name but still informative, so it is tight without being flawless.

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 write tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two facts an agent most needs (permission and implicit project scoping). Field-level body semantics are thin, but the schema structure and annotations carry most of the remaining burden.

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 single parameter is a nested body object (title, date required; stageId, description optional) whose fields get no explanation in the description. The one piece of parameter guidance it does give — 'no projectId needed' — compensates for the most likely mistake, but the required/optional body fields are left to the schema structure alone.

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 ('创建里程碑') that is unambiguously distinct from the sibling read/update/delete milestone tools (anon_get_milestones, anon_patch_milestones_milestone_id, anon_delete_milestones_milestone_id). It even names the concrete route (POST /api/projects/{id}/milestones), leaving no doubt about what is created.

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?

Provides real operational context before invocation: the required project:manage permission and the fact that the project is resolved from the current API key so no projectId is needed. It does not, however, compare against alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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