update_milestone

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. It only states the update action and date format, but does not disclose whether changes are irreversible, whether partial updates are supported, required permissions, or return behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and field list. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's basic function.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers only the basic update action and a few fields, but omits crucial context like partial-update semantics, validation, ID requirements, and response/return value. This is inadequate for an update tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 6 parameters. It adds meaning for name, due/start date, and general info, plus ISO 8601 date format, but does not explain the required project_id and milestone_id parameters or their role in routing the update. This leaves half the parameters unexplained.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: updating a milestone with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('milestone'), plus enumerates the editable fields (rename, due/start date, general info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_milestone, close_milestone, or delete_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_work_item, reopen_milestone, or close_milestone. Prerequisites, scoping (e.g., which milestones are eligible), and exclusions are absent.

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