create_milestone

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds that it returns the created milestone ID and label, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects or authorization requirements beyond what annotations hint at.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the return value. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 creation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the action, resource, and return value. However, it could mention that the 'project' parameter is required or provide a brief example of usage, but overall it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'create', the resource 'milestone', and the context 'in a Huly project'. It also mentions the return value (ID and label). This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_issue or create_label.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_issue or create_label. The description does not specify prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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