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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: a precondition (criterion must pre-exist) and an explicit statement of what the call does NOT trigger, which is the key behavioral ambiguity for this operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the effect boundary. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, precondition and effect limits for a mutation tool. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which is undocumented in both the description and the schema.

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% and the description explains none of the three UUID parameters. 'one saved acceptance criterion' loosely implies criterionId, but milestoneSetId and milestoneId semantics (e.g. scoping or whether a set must be open) are left entirely to inference from parameter 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Record that one saved acceptance criterion was met') and scopes the effect precisely. It does not explicitly name the sibling that handles the larger action (declare_milestone_complete), though the final sentence implicitly carves that out.

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?

States the precondition clearly ('The criterion must already be saved') and rules out the most likely misuse by saying it does not complete the milestone or release payment, which routes the agent to declare_milestone_complete / declare_next_payment_released for those outcomes. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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