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

Annotations provide only basic flags (not read-only, not idempotent), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key default behavior when no dates are sent, but does not explain what happens when only one date is provided, what the response contains, or any side effects. This is a useful but incomplete disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded ('Open a new sprint...'), followed by a concise clarification of the default behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description covers the core purpose and a critical default behavior. It lacks information about the return value and edge cases, but for a create operation this is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 75% with descriptions for team, startsAt, and endsAt, but name has none. The description adds the combined behavior of omitting both dates, which clarifies the relationship between startsAt and endsAt, but it doesn't explain the name parameter or provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 opens a new sprint (cycle) for a team over a date range, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like start_cycle or update_cycle, though the verb 'create' in the name and title makes the intent 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?

The description implies usage for creating a new sprint and provides a specific invocation pattern (sending neither date) that triggers a default one-week sprint appended after the last one. It does not offer exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use start_cycle instead, so guidance is only partially explicit.

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