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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the key behavioral traits: deletion is soft, tasks survive but lose their sprint association, the response is 204, and the call requires the `sprints:write` API-key scope. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before firing a destructive operation.

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 operation and its side effect, then the response signal, then the auth scope. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers side effects, response code, and scope, which is nearly everything needed for a destructive delete. Missing only edge behavior such as what happens if the sprint is already started or already deleted, and the required identifier's accepted format.

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?

The description says nothing about any of the three parameters, and the required `sprintIdentifier` has no schema description either — the agent gets no hint whether it takes an ID, a name, or a slug. The account/workspace params are well documented in the schema, but the single required param at 67% coverage leaves a real gap the description should have filled.

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 ("Soft-delete a sprint") and immediately qualifies the semantics, so an agent knows this removes the sprint rather than completing or updating it. It does not explicitly name pm_complete_sprint or pm_update_sprint as the non-destructive alternatives, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 phrase "soft-delete" hints at when this is appropriate versus completing a sprint, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to pm_complete_sprint, pm_update_sprint, or pm_list_sprint_groups. Usage must be inferred by the agent.

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