cmmn-set_acceptance_criteria

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that criteria are set and judged later, but does not explicitly state that existing criteria are replaced (though the schema does). It also does not mention permissions or side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences and a list of examples. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be more structured by including bullet points for clarity.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, when to use, and examples. It does not cover return values or error states, but those are not required given the lack of output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds examples of verification recipes but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema descriptions. The parameter descriptions in the schema already explain criteria replacement and evidence keys.

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 sets acceptance criteria on a task, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like cmmn-get_acceptance_criteria by explaining the context (judge-layer evaluation before claiming completion). Examples of verification recipes further solidify purpose.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Workflow authors call this to attach verification recipes') and connects it to cmmn-claim_complete_with_evidence. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear. Sibling tools like cmmn-get_acceptance_criteria are implicitly differentiated.

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