update_milestone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the constraint about closed milestones, which is useful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Update'), what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational impact.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear constraint and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second adds a critical limitation, and the parameter list is concise and informative. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters (1 required), 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, a key constraint, and parameter roles, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or behavioral nuances. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'milestone_id' is required and identifies 'title' and 'description' as optional fields for updates, clarifying their roles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., string length) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. With low schema coverage, the description compensates well but not fully.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and target resource ('a milestone's title or description'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_milestone' or 'reopen_milestone' by focusing on modification rather than creation or state changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_checkpoint' or 'update_project' beyond the resource type.

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 provides one explicit constraint: 'Cannot modify closed milestones,' which gives guidance on when NOT to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_checkpoint' or 'update_project,' nor does it discuss prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed) or other contextual factors. The guidance is implied but incomplete.

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