pylon_update_milestone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a rate limit of 60 requests per minute, but does not describe effects, partial update semantics, error conditions, or any required permissions. This is a mutation tool, so more transparency is expected.

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 and front-loaded: two short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the rate limit appended. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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 simple update tool with three well-documented parameters, the description and schema together provide sufficient context. The rate limit adds useful behavioral information, and no output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not required. It lacks usage guidance, but that is captured separately.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptive text (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as how fields are applied or whether partial updates are supported.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing milestone in Pylon'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pylon_create_milestone and pylon_delete_milestone. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'existing' implies the milestone must already exist, but there is no explicit mention of when to choose update over create/delete, nor any mention of required prerequisites.

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