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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/non-idempotent, and the description adds value on top: the required `sprints:write` scope, the return payload (updated SprintDTO), and the cross-entity space constraint. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or what a partial/failed association leaves behind, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, constraint, identifier format, return type, scope. The most important routing information is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, identifier format, return type, and auth scope. What's missing is the effect on tasks already assigned elsewhere and the consequence of re-adding the same task, which matters given idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true.

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 75% and account/workspace/taskIdentifiers already carry thorough inline documentation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the tsk_ identifier format and leaves sprintIdentifier completely unexplained in both description and schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Associate tasks with a sprint") in the first sentence, which cleanly separates it from the sibling pm_remove_tasks_from_sprint and from task-mutation tools like pm_update_task. No ambiguity about what the call does.

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?

Gives real prerequisites: all tasks must be in the same space as the sprint group, and identifiers (tsk_…) must be used rather than task keys. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over pm_update_task's sprint field or what happens if a task is already in another sprint, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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