set_criterion_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a write operation. Beyond 'mark done/not done' it says nothing about permissions, whether the change is reversible, out-of-range index behavior, or idempotency. The 0-based note is the only added behavioral detail.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the essential index clarification follows. Both sentences earn their place.

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 simple three-param setter with no output schema, purpose plus the index semantics cover the core, but as an unannotated mutation it omits error/permission behavior and success outcome, leaving real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the non-obvious 'index' parameter (0-based, ordered by the criteria list), and 'done'/'storyId' are self-evident, but it adds nothing to disambiguate storyId or note constraints like the existing min/max bounds.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark one acceptance criterion of a user story as done or not done'), which is instantly distinguishable from update_user_story or set_requirement_status by resource. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the similar set_requirement_status sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over directly editing the story, no prerequisites (e.g., the criterion must already exist, storyId must be valid), and no mention of the analogous requirement-status sibling. Usage is implied by the name only.

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