backlog-mcp

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation, the description details specific behaviors: assigns next STORY-NNN ID, writes story file, registers in requirements-index.md and backlog.md with status draft, appends to end of backlog, and returns {story_id, path}. This provides crucial implementation details not captured in annotations.

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 perfectly front-loaded and concise - every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the core purpose, subsequent sentences detail the specific behaviors, and the final sentence explains the return value. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 destructive write tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of the tool's behavior and effects. It explains what gets created, where it's registered, and what's returned. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention error conditions or validation failures, though the schema hints at some constraints.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it focuses on the tool's behavior rather than explaining parameters. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Create a new story'), the resource ('under an existing epic'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning unique behaviors like assigning STORY-NNN ID and writing to specific files. It goes beyond just restating the name/title to explain what the tool actually does.

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 about when to use this tool ('Create a new story under an existing epic') and mentions that the epic must already exist. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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