nexus_update_milestone_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or side effects. It lacks critical context like rate limits or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Update a milestone subtask' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and schema, avoiding unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, provide usage guidance, or explain return values. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially for a write operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (milestoneId, taskId, title, completed) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., that milestoneId and taskId identify the subtask to update) or usage notes. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource 'milestone subtask', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nexus_update_milestone' (which likely updates the milestone itself) by specifying 'subtask', though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more precise about what constitutes a 'subtask' in this context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing milestone and task), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'nexus_update_milestone' or 'nexus_update_card'. Without this, an agent might struggle to choose the right tool in context, relying solely on the name.

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