Create Milestone Type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature and retry safety are known. The description adds conceptual context about Milestone Types but does not disclose behavioral details such as duplicate handling, permission requirements, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 first paragraph is focused and informative, but the second paragraph listing parameters is redundant with the input schema. The description is not overly long but contains unnecessary duplication, so it does not fully earn 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?

For a straightforward 4-parameter create tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description provides adequate conceptual context (what a Milestone Type is and its role in Entitlement Processes). It covers all parameters implicitly and does not need to explain return values, but it could mention prerequisites or idempotency behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter names and meanings without adding new information, such as constraints, relationships, or usage examples, beyond what the schema provides.

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 states 'Creates a Milestone Type' and provides specific context: 'referenced in Entitlement Processes to define SLA checkpoints.' It identifies the exact resource and scope, distinguishing it from generic create tools.

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 description indicates the use case (Milestone Types for SLA checkpoints in Entitlement Processes), which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools like sf_create_entitlement_process.

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