manage_milestone

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds the return behavior (milestone object vs delete confirmation) and exact failure conditions as extra context. It does not contradict the annotations and reveals more operation-level 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 definition is compact and front-loaded with the core verb, then organized into USE WHEN, Actions, Returns, and FAILS WHEN. No sentence is filler; each adds operational value.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, action-specific requirements, return values, and failure cases. The agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly, including where to look up milestone IDs.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds action-to-parameter mapping: create needs title and date, update/delete need milestone_id, and dates must be YYYY-MM-DD. It also tells the agent where to obtain milestone_id, which the schema alone does not.

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?

States a clear verb-resource pair with the full scope: create, update, or delete a milestone on a roadmap. The opening sentence distinguishes it from sibling readers like get_roadmap_milestones by making mutation explicit.

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN example phrasings and names get_roadmap_milestones as the source for milestone IDs. It does not fully spell out when-not-to-use versus other manage_* tools, but the context and sibling reference are clear.

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