Check an acceptance criterion

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that 'Hand-added sections are preserved' and clarifies default behavior ('done defaults to true'). This provides useful behavioral context not captured in structured fields.

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 three short sentences that front-load the action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the primary action, the second mentions preservation behavior, and the third clarifies a default.

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 toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, default, and an important preservation detail. It could mention error cases or return value, but overall it is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity and the existing schema descriptions.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'index' (1-based) and 'done' (defaults to true). However, it does not explain the 'ticket' and 'project' parameters, which are required. The description partially compensates but does not fully cover the gap.

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 states the specific action ('Toggle the checkbox') and the resource ('acceptance criterion on a ticket's requirements pad'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_requirements' and 'get_requirements' by focusing on a single toggle operation.

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 implies usage by describing the toggle action and noting that 'done defaults to true', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for a simple operation.

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