Delete Milestone

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false), the description discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone') and the two-step confirmation behavior, including the preview return and the differential handling for elicitation clients. This adds significant behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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: three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds critical information (purpose, irreversibility, confirmation process). No wasted words.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, that it's destructive, and the confirmation workflow. It does not describe error cases or return values, but these are not required given the tool's simplicity. The openWorldHint suggests possible external side effects, but the description still provides sufficient context.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with a detailed description for confirm. The tool description mentions 'confirm: true' and 'preview' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete a milestone by id'), specifying the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling milestone tools (list, get, create, update, stats) by its destructive action. It also adds clarity by noting irreversibility and confirmation, which further differentiates it as a delete operation.

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 clear usage context by explaining the confirmation workflow: elicitation-capable clients get an interactive prompt, while others must first call without confirm to receive a preview, then call again with confirm: true. This is explicit how-to guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives (e.g., updating instead of deleting), but the context is sufficient for a delete operation.

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