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

The annotation only indicates destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden. It adds useful context: that the action results in an 'Inbox progress card' and that 'owner adopts the ticks'. However, the phrase 'owner adopts the ticks' is cryptic and not fully explained. It does not disclose edge-case behaviors (e.g., what happens if tasks do not exist) beyond the simple flow.

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—a single arrow-separated phrase. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome. The cryptic 'owner adopts the ticks' adds a potential point of confusion, but overall the structure is efficient and without unnecessary words.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the Inbox progress card, the meaning of 'owner adopts the ticks', or when to choose this over reporting tools like report_build_status. The tool likely needs more context for an agent to use it correctly in all scenarios.

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 75%, which is moderate. The description clarifies that the operation is for 'existing-milestone' tasks and that 'done_tasks' are marked done, adding some context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the id vs milestone fallback or the role of project_id, so it does not fully compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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: 'Mark existing-milestone tasks done' and specifies the output effect ('Inbox progress card'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_task (new tasks) and update_task (generic updates) by focusing on milestone-specific progress. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for marking tasks in an existing milestone as done, but it does not state exclusions (e.g., when to use update_task instead) or mention prerequisites such as milestone existence. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is provided.

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