delete_milestone

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

The description identifies the tool as destructive ('Deletes'), and notes the default session behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks important behavioral details like whether the deletion is irreversible, cascading effects on associated items, or error handling for non-existent milestones. The default session info is useful but incomplete for a full understanding of side effects.

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 short, direct sentences. No redundant or extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, clearly stating the action and the parameter behavior. Excellent front-loading.

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 that an output schema exists (unknown content), the description does not need to detail return values. However, the tool is a delete operation with no annotations, so it should mention permanence, preconditions, or typical error scenarios. The description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds minimal context: milestone_id is the identifier, and session_id defaults to the current session. No format, constraints, or examples are given for either parameter. Most meaning must be inferred from the schema alone.

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 specifies a clear action ('Deletes a milestone') and identifies the resource ('by its ID'). It distinguishes this tool from other delete siblings like delete_epic or delete_issue by explicitly naming 'milestone'. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete a milestone versus closing it or archiving it. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned (e.g., milestone must be empty, permissions needed). The only contextual hint is the session fallback, which is more about parameter handling than usage.

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