Create or update milestone

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds real value with the cost estimate ('one API call, about 0.5s') and the discovery path via qase_project_context, but it does not disclose the key upsert semantics — whether an update overwrites or clears omitted optional fields like status and due_date — nor what the call returns. Useful but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core create/update distinction and the domain gloss front-loaded before the discovery hint and cost note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers mode selection, prerequisite discovery, and latency cost. The remaining gap is the effect of partial updates on unmentioned fields, which matters for an upsert but is not addressed.

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 100%; every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the id create-vs-update semantics and the status enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail (formats, date handling, code constraints) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb pair (create or update) plus the resource, and defines what a milestone is in domain terms ('a dated marker, typically a release, that runs and cases are grouped under'). It also disambiguates the two modes: with `id` it updates, without it creates. An agent can distinguish this from qase_milestone_delete without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the mode-selection rule (id present = update, absent = create) and a concrete prerequisite pointer: fetch existing milestones from qase_project_context before deciding. It does not state when to prefer create-over-update beyond that rule, nor name alternatives such as qase_milestone_delete, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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