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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true, the description concretely explains the danger mechanism: fields omitted may be cleared by the backend, so callers must resend everything they want preserved. It also discloses the required API-key scope `sprints:write`, adding auth context the annotations don't carry.

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: what it does, the critical PUT caveat, and the auth scope. The most consequential warning is front-loaded second and nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent can't infer: the replace-not-merge semantics and the write scope. Account/workspace routing is already documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description lifts it by reframing the optional fields (name, goal, dates) as effectively all-or-nothing due to PUT semantics, which is semantic information the schema's per-field descriptions do not convey. It doesn't address sprintIdentifier, account, or workspace, but the schema covers those well.

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 plus the exact fields affected: "Full update of sprint name, goal, and date window." That clearly separates it from neighboring sprint tools like pm_start_sprint, pm_complete_sprint, and pm_get_sprint, which do different things to the same entity.

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 PUT-vs-PATCH note gives explicit operational guidance ("Pass every field you want to keep"), which tells the agent how to invoke it safely. It does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer pm_complete_sprint/pm_start_sprint instead, so it falls short of full when-to-use coverage.

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