delete_milestone

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely restates the action. It does not disclose consequences such as permanence, cascading effects on work items, or required permissions, which would be valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earned its place. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple delete operation with destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose, but lacks additional details like return value, error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites. Given the low complexity and annotation coverage, a 3 reflects that it is usable but not thorough.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. While the parameter names 'project_id' and 'milestone_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify their relationship (e.g., that a milestone belongs to a project) or where to obtain these IDs. The description thus adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('milestone') with a clear scope ('by ID'). This unambiguously communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from other sibling tools like update_milestone or retrieve_milestone.

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 given on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of when deletion is appropriate, potential constraints (e.g., deleting a milestone with associated work items), or that one might need to retrieve the milestone first. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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