gh_create_milestone

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

Adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: due_on accepts ISO format, state defaults to 'open', and the tool requires write permissions and may prompt for human approval. These details complement the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) without contradiction.

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 appropriately sized—four sentences covering purpose, key parameter details, and configuration constraints. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the last sentence is slightly repetitive with 'true' twice.

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 the essential aspects: action, key parameters, and operational prerequisites (write permission, human approval). Since an output schema exists, return values do not need explanation. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., duplicate milestone handling) but is sufficient for a creation tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly documents due_on format and state default, but the remaining parameters (owner, repo, title, description) are left to their names and schema structure. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a new milestone in a repository via the GitHub API.' It specifies the resource (milestone) and scope (repository), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gh_list_milestones.

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 operational context: the tool is disabled unless MCP_GH_ALLOW_WRITE_COMMANDS=true, and the default MCP_GH_CONFIRM_WRITE_COMMANDS=true triggers a human approval prompt. This gives useful when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions.

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