milestone_add_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints: item_ref must exist for bug/req, acceptance is required for size='large', priority semantics, and linked_frs affects pull_next eligibility. It does not mention duplicate handling, reversibility, or permissions, but the core side effects and prerequisites of attaching an item are surfaced.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a tight bullet list of parameters. Every bullet adds necessary semantic value, and there is no filler or repeated schema boilerplate. The structure makes the tool easy for an agent to scan and apply.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that removes the need to document return values, the description covers all invocation-relevant information: parameter semantics, required-condition behavior, and cross-tool eligibility effects. Nothing essential for correctly calling the tool is missing.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with meaningful detail beyond the schema: milestone_id is a slug, item_kind values map to CB-N/FR-N, size values carry effort meaning, priority semantics are clarified, and linked_frs has a cross-tool purpose. This is a model example of description-level parameter documentation.

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 first sentence is a specific verb+resource statement: 'Attach an item (bug / requirement / external) to a milestone.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling milestone tools like milestone_create, milestone_update, and milestone_move_item, none of which describe attaching an existing item. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: any time an item should be attached to a milestone. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus milestone_move_item or milestone_update. The lack of explicit exclusions keeps it just below a 5.

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