add_milestone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a generic action without explaining prerequisites (e.g., existing project), whether existing milestones are overwritten, persistence mechanism, or what the response contains. No side effects or permissions are mentioned.

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 key attributes. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant or irrelevant detail.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this description is inadequate. It fails to explain the milestone's relationship to a project, storage, behavior on duplicate names, or expected output. Even with an output schema, the behavioral context is missing, making it hard for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description merely echoes the existence of 'target date' and 'features' without adding new meaning, such as formats, constraints, or interactions between parameters. It neither fully compensates nor adds value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Define a milestone') and key attributes ('target date and associated features'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_milestones' (which reads milestones) and 'create_task' (which handles tasks, not milestones).

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. It does not mention that this creates a new milestone, how it relates to other milestone operations, or when it might be preferable. The only clue is the tool name itself.

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