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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the side effect on incomplete tasks and the two distinct outcomes (rollover vs. left unsorted). It also names the required API-key scope (`sprints:write`), which annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying whether the transition is reversible or what happens if the rollover target is closed/missing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and state transition, followed by the rollover semantics and the auth scope. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the optional side effect, and the permission requirement. Remaining gaps (reversibility, behavior when the rollover target is invalid, or effect on sprint dates) are minor but not fully covered.

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 the description fills the important semantic gap: it clarifies that omitting `rolloverSprintIdentifier` means no rollover (versus failing or defaulting), and explains the intended target sprint. `account` and `workspace` are already well documented in the schema, so the description correctly doesn't repeat them.

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 precise verb and resource plus the exact state transition ('Transition a sprint from IN_PROGRESS to DONE'), which is unambiguous and separable from siblings like pm_start_sprint or pm_update_sprint. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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 explicit conditional guidance for the optional rollover: pass it to move incomplete tasks to another sprint, omit it to leave them unsorted, and notes the rollover target is 'typically the next one in the group'. It does not explicitly contrast with pm_update_sprint or pm_start_sprint, so the alternative-tool routing is implied rather than stated.

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