close_milestone

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

The description reveals a critical behavioral trait: 'Par defaut dry_run=true' (default dry run). This is not present in annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint=false) and adds safety context. However, it does not specify what happens when dry_run=false or any side effects, leaving room for improvement.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, delivering essential information without any wordiness. It is front-loaded with the action and default behavior.

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 simple tool with well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks information about return values, confirmation requirements, or error handling, but the schema covers parameter details.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (group_id, milestone_id, dry_run) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional information about parameters beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Fermer un milestone') and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'close_project_milestone', which might target project milestones vs group milestones. A brief differentiation would improve clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_project_milestone' or 'close_epic'. The description lacks context for selecting the correct tool among many close-type tools.

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