update_milestone

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

The description explicitly discloses that it is a PATCH operation (only provided fields change) and clarifies an important behavioral nuance: closing a milestone does NOT close its associated open issues. This goes beyond what annotations would provide (none given) and is critical for correct use.

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 a single, well-structured sentence followed by a critical note. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and method, and every part contributes essential information without 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, update behavior, optional fields, and a key side effect. It adequately compensates for the lack of annotations and is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, creating a baseline of 3. The description adds value by summarizing the optional fields and explaining the state parameter's effect (including the caveat about issue closure). This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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?

Clearly states 'Update a milestone by id (PATCH: only provided fields change)'. The verb 'update' and resource 'milestone' are explicit, and the method is specified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_milestone or delete_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?

Provides clear guidance on which fields can be provided (title, description, due_on, state) and the behavior of state changes. It implicitly tells when to use (when you need to modify a milestone) and includes a critical caveat about closing milestones not closing issues. While not explicitly stating when not to use, it is sufficient for most scenarios.

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