promote_milestone

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Promote' implies a state-changing mutation, but nothing discloses side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or behavior when the milestone is already at the final stage, leaving post-conditions and failure modes completely unknown.

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 six-word sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the action verb. It is clean and efficiently sized, though the brevity is what creates the semantic vagueness penalized in other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral context, yet it leaves the core semantics of 'next stage' undefined and never mentions what the tool returns on success or failure. For a state-changing operation, an agent is missing enough information to call it correctly with confidence.

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%, with project_id and milestone_id each documented in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema; the notable quirk is that zero parameters are marked required even though both are presumably necessary for the operation.

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 names a specific verb ('promote') and resource ('milestone'), which sets it apart from sibling CRUD verbs like create_milestone, edit_milestone, and delete_milestone. However, 'to the next stage' is undefined — an agent cannot tell what stages exist, what promotion changes about the milestone, or what observable effect it has versus edit_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 given on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include create_milestone, edit_milestone, delete_milestone, and list_milestones, but the description never states which condition selects promote_milestone over edit_milestone, nor any prerequisites such as the milestone needing to exist or belong to a project.

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