update_milestone

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only implies mutation. It doesn't disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved, what permissions are required, whether closing is reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the updateable fields are surfaced immediately. Slight under-specification rather than over-verbosity keeps it from a 5.

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?

Parameter documentation is fully covered by the schema and there is no output schema to explain. However, as a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description omits behavioral context (permissions, partial-update semantics) an agent would want before invoking it.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including formats (YYYY-MM-DD, enum values). The description names the field groups but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, 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 (update) and resource (milestone) and enumerates the updateable fields: dates, title, description, state. An agent can tell it apart from create_milestone/list_milestones/get_milestone by the verb, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't say to use get_milestone first, whether this requires edit permissions, or how it relates to create_milestone or update_project. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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