backlog-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the exact markdown transformation (- [ ] → - [x]), lists error conditions (story not found, criterion not found, already checked), and describes the return format ({story_id, criterion, checked, path}). This compensates well for the lack of an output schema.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second specifies parameter requirements, and the third covers return values and errors. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (destructive mutation with multiple parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, behavior, and errors. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces the mutual exclusivity of criterion_index and criterion_text and mentions case-insensitivity for criterion_text, but does not provide additional semantic context like examples or edge cases.

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 ('Mark a single acceptance criterion as checked'), the resource ('in a story file'), and the transformation ('- [ ] → - [x]'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'set_acceptance_criteria' (which sets multiple criteria) and 'complete_story' (which completes the entire story).

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 on when to use this tool (to check a single acceptance criterion) and specifies that exactly one identifier (criterion_index or criterion_text) must be provided. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'complete_story' for broader story completion.

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