vibemap_create_acceptance_criterion

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it creates in BDD format and can be called multiple times, but does not detail side effects, return value, or prerequisites beyond the schema. The added context is useful but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and provides additional usage guidance concisely.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains usage and parameter mapping but does not mention the return value (e.g., the created criterion's ID) or prerequisites (e.g., story existence). This leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With 71% schema description coverage, the description adds value by linking the BDD format to the givenCondition, whenAction, and thenOutcome parameters, and mapping scenarioCategory to happy path, error cases, and edge cases. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 explicitly states it creates an acceptance criterion for a user story in BDD format (Given/When/Then), which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, update, or delete.

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 advises using the tool to flesh out 'done' before or during implementation, and explicitly mentions it can be called multiple times for happy path, error cases, and edge cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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