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 that 'complete_story' enforces acceptance criteria, appends a summary note, and removes the story from the backlog, which helps the agent understand workflow implications. While annotations cover safety (destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=false), the description provides practical usage context without contradicting 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 with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear usage guidance and return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, usage boundaries, behavioral context about workflow implications, and return value information. It compensates for the lack of output schema by describing the return structure.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces the status parameter's allowed values and references the alternative tool, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning 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 ('Update the status of a story') and the exact resources involved ('draft, in-progress, or blocked'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'complete_story' which handles marking a story as done. It provides a precise verb+resource combination with explicit scope boundaries.

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 ('to draft, in-progress, or blocked') and when not to use it ('To mark a story done, use complete_story instead'), providing clear alternatives and exclusions. It even explains what the alternative tool does differently, offering comprehensive guidance.

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