backlog-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the note format ('appended under a '## Notes' section with an ISO 8601 timestamp'), return values ('Returns {story_id, appended_at, path}'), and that notes are appended (not overwritten). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description clarifies this is an append operation rather than full deletion.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences: purpose, implementation details, and return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with comprehensive annotations but no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it explains the action, format, and return structure. It could potentially mention error conditions or constraints, but covers the essential context given the tool's complexity.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal additional context about note format ('multi-line', 'UTC timestamp') and story_id format ('e.g. STORY-047'), but doesn't provide significant semantic value beyond what's in the 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 specific action ('Append a timestamped note'), target resource ('to a story file'), and purpose ('record progress, decisions made, or blockers encountered'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'complete_story' or 'set_story_status' by focusing solely on note-taking rather than state changes or criteria management.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to record progress, decisions made, or blockers encountered'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for annotation rather than core story management tasks.

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