check_acceptance_criterion

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses specific error conditions (story not found, criterion not found, already checked) and the return format, adding concrete behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states action and transformation, second covers identification, return values, and errors. No redundant fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description, combined with annotations and schema, fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, behaviors, and error states. No additional information is needed for correct 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 already has 100% coverage with good descriptions. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Exactly one must be provided' for the mutually exclusive parameters, reinforcing the constraint.

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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' and resource 'acceptance criterion' with a clear transformation '- [ ] → - [x]'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_update_acceptance_criteria and set_acceptance_criteria by focusing on a single criterion.

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 specifies how to identify the criterion (index or text, exactly one required) and lists error conditions. It implies single-criterion use but does not explicitly contrast with bulk alternatives; however, the context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

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