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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the required starting state, the one-in-progress-per-group rule and its failure mode, 'No body', and the `sprints:write` API-key scope. It does not say whether the transition is reversible or what happens to sprint tasks/dates, which keeps it from 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the state transition, then the constraint, then the terse 'No body' and auth scope. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 whose safety profile is already in annotations, the description covers precondition, failure mode, request shape, and auth scope. Only the format of the required sprintIdentifier and post-transition effects are left unstated.

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 67%: account and workspace are fully documented in the schema, but the sole required parameter, sprintIdentifier, has no description in either place — the description offers no hint whether it is an ID, key, or name. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries most parameter documentation.

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 ('Transition a sprint') plus the exact state change (NOT_STARTED → IN_PROGRESS), which cleanly separates it from siblings like pm_update_sprint and pm_complete_sprint. An agent knows exactly what this call does 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 a clear precondition (sprint must be NOT_STARTED) and an explicit failure condition (another sprint in the same group already IN_PROGRESS). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, e.g. 'use pm_complete_sprint to close an active sprint', so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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