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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description enriches that with concrete consequences: finished tasks are archived to sprint history, leave the Done column but stay searchable, unfinished tasks remain, and the action 'cannot be undone via MCP.' This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then the effect, then the irreversibility warning. No filler; every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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 destructive one-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger, effect on both finished and unfinished tasks, reversibility, and an ambiguity guard. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

There is one required param (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it. The sprint id is strongly implied by the action and the schema supplies the UUID format, so the gap is tolerable but real.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Marks the sprint complete and archives its finished tasks.' It also cycles through what happens to finished and unfinished tasks, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like complete_task and archive_done_tasks.

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 has finished a sprint and wants to wrap it up (e.g. close this sprint)' gives a clear triggering condition and adds a caution to confirm on ambiguous intent. It doesn't name an explicit alternative tool, but the trigger phrasing is unambiguous.

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