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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the action cannot be undone via MCP, that finished tasks are archived and leave the Done column but remain searchable, and that unfinished tasks stay on the board. It also recommends confirmation when intent is ambiguous, adding substantial context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, each adding value: usage trigger, side effects, and irreversibility warning. It is front-loaded with the usage intent and avoids fluff.

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 single-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the behavioral outcome (archiving vs. staying), irreversibility, and a safety confirmation. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all. Since the parameter is self-explanatory (the sprint identifier) and the schema provides format/required constraints, the description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but it also doesn't harm clarity. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the single simple parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the tool marks a sprint complete and archives its finished tasks. It includes an example phrase ('close this sprint') and distinguishes this from completing a task or archiving tasks alone, making the purpose 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?

It explicitly states when to use it: when the user has finished a sprint and wants to wrap it up. It also advises confirming ambiguous intent. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like archive_done_tasks or complete_task, though the 'close this sprint' example makes the context clear.

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