update_project_milestone

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, so the description's job is lighter. It adds an 'allowed-project' scope caveat not present in annotations. However, it fails to mention the clear_deadline behavior (how to remove a deadline), which is a meaningful behavior beyond the annotated traits.

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 filler, front-loaded with the verb and objective. It earns its place, though at the cost of omitting clear_deadline details.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description doesn't need to explain return values. But the clear_deadline parameter's purpose is not described, and 'allowed-project' is left undefined. These are notable gaps for an update tool with five parameters.

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 compensate. It names three of the five parameters (name, deadline, is_reached) but omits milestone_id and, more importantly, clear_deadline, whose semantics are not inferable from the schema alone. This leaves a required field and a functional flag unexplained.

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 the verb 'Update' with the resource 'milestone' and lists the specific mutable fields (name, deadline, reached flag). 'Allowed-project' helps distinguish from unconstrained milestone tools, and the update verb separates it from create/list siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_project_milestone or list_project_milestones. The 'allowed-project' qualifier implies a scope constraint, but there is no statement of conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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