Save milestone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns only {id, name}, which is important for an agent to know. However, it does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement) or any side effects, such as whether other fields like description are updated on successful call. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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, concise and front-loaded with the most important behavior (create/update). Every sentence adds necessary information. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value {id, name}, which is helpful. The four parameters are fully covered in the schema, and the description adds conditional requiredness. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks details on error cases or idempotency of updates. Overall, it provides adequate context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 all parameters have basic descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that 'id' distinguishes create vs update, and that 'name' and 'project' are required on create. It also notes that 'project' accepts name or id. This goes beyond the schema, which only lists property types and names.

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 'Create (no id) or update (id) a project milestone.' It distinguishes between create and update based on the presence of the 'id' parameter, and the resource (milestone) is specific. Sibling tools like save_issue or save_project are for different resources, so differentiation is 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 description provides clear guidance on when to use create (omit 'id') vs update (provide 'id'), and states that create requires 'name' and 'project'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like get_milestone or list_milestones. The guidance is present but could be more comprehensive.

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