close_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 clearly states that the action 'marks it done without deleting it' and is reversible, which are key behavioral traits beyond the tool name. It does not mention permissions or side effects on other entities, but for a simple state-change tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded, two-part sentence that conveys purpose, non-destructive behavior, and reversibility. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the effect ('marks it done'), the non-deletion guarantee, and the reversal path. It does not detail return values or prerequisites, but these are not critical for understanding how to invoke the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage for its two required parameters (project_id, milestone_id), and the tool description does not mention or explain them. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema property names, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Close (release)' with a clear resource ('a milestone') and explicitly distinguishes itself from deletion ('without deleting it') and from the reverse operation ('reopen_milestone'). This fully differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_milestone and update_milestone.

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 implies when to use this tool (to mark a milestone done while preserving it) and mentions the alternative 'reopen_milestone' for reversal. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., versus delete_milestone) or provide prerequisites.

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