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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the blast radius is limited to the association (tasks stay in their lists), the return is the updated SprintDTO, and the required API-key scope is `sprints:write`. It does not cover edge behavior such as what happens when a task is not in the sprint, so not a 5.

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 carrying distinct information, with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded relative to the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return value (updated SprintDTO) and the required scope. Remaining gaps around sprintIdentifier format and error cases keep it below complete.

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%, so the schema already documents account, workspace, and the tsk_… format for taskIdentifiers; the description's id-format note largely restates that. sprintIdentifier has no description in the schema and the description does not clarify whether it accepts a spr_… id or a name, leaving the main gap unfilled.

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?

A specific verb-plus-resource statement ("Remove task-sprint associations") that immediately disambiguates from deletion by noting "Tasks remain in their lists." An agent can distinguish it from pm_delete_task and pair it with pm_add_tasks_to_sprint without opening either 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?

The description states the non-destructive framing and the id-format requirement ("Pass identifiers (tsk_…), not task keys"), which implicitly steers the agent away from delete_task for unlinking work. It stops short of naming pm_add_tasks_to_sprint as the inverse or stating when-not to use this tool, so no explicit alternative routing.

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