backlog-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the idempotent behavior ('calling again replaces the previous AC entirely'), the workflow dependency ('must be set before a story can be completed'), and the output format ('Returns {story_id, criteria_count, path}'). While annotations cover destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description provides practical implementation details that help the agent understand consequences.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the core functionality, behavioral characteristics, and workflow context. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, and it's 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?

For a destructive mutation tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, behavioral traits, workflow dependencies, and return values. It compensates for the lack of output schema by specifying the return structure, making it sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minor context about the criteria transformation ('Each string becomes a `- [ ] ...` checklist line') but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the schema. 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 specific action ('Replace the acceptance criteria section'), target resource ('story file'), and transformation ('Each string in the criteria array becomes a `- [ ] ...` checklist line'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_acceptance_criterion' (which checks individual criteria) and 'complete_story' (which requires criteria to be set first).

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 states when to use this tool ('Acceptance criteria must be set before a story can be completed with complete_story') and provides an alternative context ('Idempotent: calling again replaces the previous AC entirely'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its unique role in the workflow.

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