set_acceptance_criteria

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

The description claims the tool is 'Idempotent: calling again replaces the previous AC entirely', but the annotations set idempotentHint to false, directly contradicting the description. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines transparency. Additionally, while the description explains the checklist format and return value, the contradiction dominates.

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 four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, explaining output format, describing idempotence and precondition, and stating return value. It is front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return value structure. However, it does not explain error cases (e.g., invalid story_id) or behavior when called on a non-existent story. The contradiction on idempotency also reduces completeness. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that each string in the 'criteria' array becomes a '- [ ] ...' checklist line, which is not in the schema. It also notes that criteria must contain at least one item, which is redundant with schema but consistent.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'acceptance criteria section of a story file', distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_acceptance_criterion' which checks a single criterion, and 'bulk_update_acceptance_criteria' which may update multiple stories.

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 explicitly notes a precondition: 'Acceptance criteria must be set before a story can be completed with complete_story'. It also explains idempotent behavior, though that is contradicted by annotations. It does not specify when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the narrow purpose limits ambiguity.

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