set_acceptance_criteria

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

The description claims the tool is 'Idempotent', but the annotations set idempotentHint to false, creating a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description discloses behavioral details (checkmark preservation, AC-ID handling) beyond the annotations, but the contradiction severely undermines transparency.

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 well-structured, starting with the main action, then explaining the checklist format, idempotency, and a prerequisite. While it packs a lot of information, it remains clear and efficient, with each sentence serving a distinct 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?

The description covers key aspects: what the tool does, how to format criteria, idempotency, prerequisite, and return value. However, the annotation contradiction (idempotentHint mismatch) introduces confusion, reducing overall completeness for a reliable agent decision.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, but the description adds significant value by explaining the checklist behavior: plain text becomes unchecked `- [ ] ...` items, and how to pass pre-checked items or preserve AC-IDs. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Replace the acceptance criteria section of a story file.' It elaborates on the format of criteria strings, idempotency, and the prerequisite relationship with complete_story, making the function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 the tool: 'Acceptance criteria must be set before a story can be completed with complete_story.' It also notes idempotency. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or guidance on when not to use it versus alternative tools like bulk_update_acceptance_criteria or check_acceptance_criterion.

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