Modify a GitHub milestone's title, description, due date, or state to track project progress and deadlines effectively.
Update a GitHub milestone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| milestoneId | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| dueDate | Yes | ||
| state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose immediately without 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 (5 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, what to expect in return, or the implications of using it.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'milestoneId', 'title', 'description', 'dueDate', or 'state' represent or how to use them.
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 'GitHub milestone', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_issue' or 'update_project' tools, which also update GitHub resources, nor does it mention what aspects of a milestone can be updated beyond the generic term.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing milestone ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating milestones, which has a sibling 'create_milestone'), or how it compares to other update tools like 'update_issue' or 'update_project'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.