check_acceptance_criterion

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the return format ({story_id, criterion, checked, path}) and listing specific error conditions (story not found, criterion not found, already checked). Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and non-idempotency, and the description aligns consistently.

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 concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and identification methods; the second covers requirements, return format, and errors. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, identification methods, return fields, and error conditions. It could mention what happens if both identification parameters are provided, but 'Exactly one must be provided' implies validation. Overall, it is complete enough for correct agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity requirement and adds the detail that criterion_text is case-insensitive exact match, which is not in the schema description. This provides extra guidance beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: marking a single acceptance criterion as checked in a story file. It specifies the transformation from unchecked to checked and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like set_acceptance_criteria and bulk_update_acceptance_criteria by focusing on a single criterion with two identification methods.

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 usage guidelines: it tells when to use the tool (to check a single criterion), specifies the mutual exclusivity of criterion_index and criterion_text, and lists error conditions. It implies when not to use (if the criterion is already checked, it errors) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond focusing on single vs. bulk operations.

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