anon_post_milestones_milestone_id_complete

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the required permission, the exact side effect (completedAt = current time), and that re-invocation refreshes the timestamp (consistent with idempotentHint=false). It also clarifies that project scope is derived from the API key, adding context the annotations do not carry; it does not, however, explain reversibility or how to undo completion, which is notable for a destructiveHint=true action.

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 action is front-loaded, followed by the permission requirement and the important re-invocation caveat. Slightly padded by restating the raw HTTP route and the 'no need to pass projectId' note, but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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 one-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers permissions, side effects, idempotency behavior, and scope resolution. The main gap is the absence of any guidance on undoing or reversing a completion.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully states that projectId is not required (project inferred from the API key), but it never explains the milestoneId path parameter itself, leaving the sole parameter's semantics only implied.

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 and resource: '标记里程碑完成' (mark the milestone as complete). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like anon_post_todos_todo_id_complete (different resource) and anon_patch_milestones_milestone_id (different operation).

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 names a prerequisite ('需 project:manage 权限') and warns that repeated calls refresh completedAt, which tells the agent not to retry casually. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not-to-use or pointing to the alternative PATCH tool for generic milestone edits.

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