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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description adds valuable context beyond that by specifying the non-destructive effect on issues: they survive and fall back to no sprint. This explains the precise outcome, which is crucial for an agent.

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 short sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide essential consequence and rationale. No redundant phrases or filler.

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 delete with no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and the critical consequence (issues surviving). It could mention error cases or idempotency, but these are less critical given the destructive annotation.

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 100% with the sprint parameter described as 'Sprint name, number or id.' The description adds no extra parameter nuances, so it meets the baseline expected when the schema carries the full documentation.

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 action 'Remove' and resource 'sprint', and the added clause about issues surviving clarifies the exact effect, distinguishing it from other delete_* tools that might cascade or destroy related data.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'which is what descoping a cancelled sprint needs' – indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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