backlog-mcp

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

Annotations indicate destructive (true), non-idempotent (false), and open-world (true) hints, which the description aligns with by describing actions that modify files (adds, removes, refreshes). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies what gets modified (epic.md file's Stories section) and the scope of reconciliation (with story files and requirements index), though it does not detail rate limits or auth needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific actions and return values in a concise manner. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (destructive file reconciliation) and lack of output schema, the description does well by explaining the return structure ({epic_id, added, removed, updated, unchanged}). However, it could improve by detailing error conditions or prerequisites, though annotations provide some behavioral context (destructive, open-world).

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%, with the parameter 'epic_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description ('Epic ID to groom'), such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Reconcile the ## Stories section in an epic.md file') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on file synchronization rather than story creation, status setting, or listing. It specifies the resources involved (epic.md file, story files, requirements index) and the outcome (adds, removes, refreshes entries).

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 when needing to sync an epic's story section with disk and index files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_stories' or 'create_story'. It provides clear context (reconciliation tasks) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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