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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description largely restates that ("Idempotent... is a no-op"), which duplicates structured data. It does add the concrete outcome of a repeat call, but omits auth requirements, whether the sprint must be active, and behavior on completed/archived sprints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by a short behavioral note. No waste, no redundancy in structure.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and idempotency but leaves preconditions (sprint state, permissions) and error behavior unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps given the mutation nature of the tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the two required parameters (taskId, sprintId) or their UUID format constraints. Unlike a zero-parameter tool, this needs compensation and provides none beyond the parameter names being self-explanatory.

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: pulling an existing task into a sprint. An agent can distinguish this from create_task (which creates new work) without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from the inverse sibling remove_task_from_sprint, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to pull an existing task into a sprint" is a trigger condition, but it only restates the purpose. No alternatives are named (remove_task_from_sprint for the inverse, move_task for reordering/cross-sprint moves), so the agent must infer boundaries from sibling names alone.

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