milestone_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses refusal conditions, the force override ('still won't close streams'), and that the operation is audit-logged. This goes well beyond the schema and gives an agent realistic expectations.

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 compact, front-loads the core operation, and uses a clear Args list. There is no filler or repetition beyond the necessary emphasis that streams cannot be closed even with force.

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?

The context is adequate for a three-parameter tool: the gate conditions, force behavior, and audit semantics are all covered, and an output schema exists to describe return values. It could be slightly richer on permissions/error responses, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, but the Args section compensates fully: id is defined as a milestone slug with kind='release', force is defined as overriding the close-gate while never closing streams, and reason is defined as the audit reason. Every parameter gains meaning beyond its type.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Close a release milestone') and scopes the tool to release milestones over other milestone operations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like milestone_defer or milestone_update, so the differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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?

It gives clear context for when the close will be accepted vs refused ('Refuses if items are unfinished, on a branch, or have unresolved blockers') and warns that streams cannot be closed. It stops short of recommending an alternative tool for deferred/stalled milestones, so the when-not guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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