backlog-mcp

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details validation rules (blocking if AC placeholder exists), conditional requirements (incomplete_items when criteria unchecked), atomic operation, file modifications (removes from backlog.md), and success response format. Annotations cover safety (destructive) and idempotency, but the description enriches this with specific workflow constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by validation rules and success details in a logical flow. Every sentence adds critical information (prerequisites, conditional logic, outcomes) with zero waste, making it highly efficient 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 complexity (validation, conditional params, file operations) and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, usage rules, behavior, and output. Lacks explicit mention of error cases or rate limits, but annotations (openWorldHint) and context provide adequate coverage for agent use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics (e.g., 'mandatory' for summary, order requirement for incomplete_items), but most details are already in schema descriptions, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 story done and append a mandatory completion summary note in one atomic call'), identifies the resource ('story'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing its atomic completion nature versus tools like 'add_story_note' or 'set_story_status'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Mark a story done') and when not to use it ('if the AC section has not been set... call set_acceptance_criteria first'), with clear prerequisites and alternatives named ('set_acceptance_criteria'), providing comprehensive guidance.

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