Github Update Milestone

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description 'Changes a milestone' aligns. The description adds valuable context about partial updates, which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences total. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior and partial-update rule; the second points to workflow guidance. No filler, every word earns its place.

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?

Given 7 params, mutation, and open-world hints, the description covers the essential behavior and points to a skill for deeper conventions. An output schema exists, so return format isn't needed. Could add explicit 'use for existing milestones only' but the skill pointer and phrase 'in place' suffice.

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 71% (5 of 7 params have descriptions). The description adds the key semantic that only supplied fields are sent, which clarifies how optional params (new_title, description, due_on, state) behave when omitted. This adds meaning beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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?

Description states 'Changes a milestone in place' – a clear verb+resource with the nuance of modifying an existing milestone. It doesn't explicitly contrast with github_create_milestone, but the phrase 'in place' implies existing objects, and the name itself distinguishes from creation. Adequately clear.

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?

The partial-update behavior ('Only the fields supplied are sent') gives concrete guidance on how to use the tool, and the pointer to github_get_skill('issue-management') tells the agent where to find workflow conventions. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this vs alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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