milestone_set_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one key side effect: 'Records done_commit if status is terminal.' It also hints at audit via 'Optional audit reason,' but it does not explain transition rules, reversibility, permissions, or what happens when a status is changed away from a terminal value.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean bulleted Args list. Every part earns its place without redundant elaboration.

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 description covers all parameters and the main side effect, and an output schema exists to document returns. However, it leaves out important operational context such as which statuses count as terminal, whether transitions are validated, and when to choose this over closely related status-changing siblings.

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, and it does: it explains item_ref with an example, enumerates the five valid statuses, defines commit as a SHA on main, and marks reason as optional. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Set an item's status' within a milestone context, and it lists the allowed status values. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like milestone_close or milestone_defer, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as milestone_close, milestone_defer, or mark_integrated. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the argument list alone.

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