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 write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the exact artifacts created (epic directory, epic.md file, requirements-index.md registration), the auto-assigned ID format (EPIC-NNN), and the initial status (draft). This clarifies the scope and side-effects of the operation.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the action, artifacts created, registration details, and return values. Every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 creation tool with full parameter documentation in the schema and rich annotations, the description provides excellent context about what gets created and how the system behaves. The only minor gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description explicitly states the return format ({epic_id, path}), which compensates well.

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 doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain title/description usage further). This meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('Create a new epic') and specifies the resources involved (EPIC-NNN ID, epic directory, epic.md file, requirements-index.md). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_story' by focusing on epics rather than stories, and from 'groom_epic' by being a creation tool rather than a modification tool.

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 implies usage for creating epics in a structured system, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_story' or 'groom_epic'. It mentions the outcome (status draft) which suggests initial creation, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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