milestone_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses partial-update semantics ('or None to skip') and immutable fields, but does not disclose side effects such as state-transition rules, whether updates are reflected elsewhere, or failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-line purpose followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler.

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 4-parameter update tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and constraints. It only lacks explicit routing relative to sibling milestone state/status tools, which would make it fully complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates: it defines id as a milestone slug, target_date as an ISO date, state as an enumerated set, and clarifies that None means skip rather than clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Update mutable fields of a milestone', and explicitly states what is out of scope ('id and kind are immutable'), which helps distinguish it from milestone_create or other milestone operations.

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 usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives: it is for changing milestone mutable fields, and the immutability note adds a constraint. However, it does not say when to choose this over closely related siblings like milestone_set_status or milestone_close.

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