Update Milestone

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable context: partial patch behavior and automatic handling of the optimistic-concurrency version field. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the essential purpose and key usage constraint. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to invoke it (patch), and a critical caveat about the version field. It doesn't discuss return values or error cases, but these are not essential for selection and invocation.

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 only 20% (only 'id' is described), so the description must compensate. It explains the patch semantics generally but doesn't elaborate on each field (e.g., date format, behavior of 'closed'). The property names are self-explanatory, but more detail would improve clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing milestone'), clearly distinguishing it from milestone_create or milestone_delete. It also clarifies the partial patch nature, so the agent knows it modifies rather than replaces.

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 clearly states the patch semantics ('only include fields you want to change') and warns against passing the version field. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over create/delete, the context of an existing milestone makes usage obvious.

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