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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only or destructive, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It adds the null removal behavior and the team membership requirement, which are valuable behavioral details beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations and no further disclosure is needed for such a simple 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the primary action, immediately cover the removal case, and add the necessary constraint. Zero wasted words; every phrase 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the null edge case, and the key constraint. It does not discuss error conditions or return values, but given the simplicity and existing schema coverage, these are not critical omissions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the constraint that the sprint must belong to the issue's team, which is not present in the parameter descriptions. This adds meaningful semantic information about the relationship between 'cycle' and 'issue'.

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 a specific action ('Put an issue into a sprint') and the resource involved, and it explicitly covers the removal case with null. It distinguishes itself from the broader sibling 'move_issue' by focusing on sprint assignment, and the team constraint adds specificity.

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 gives a clear usage instruction for the null parameter ('pass null to take it out') and a prerequisite ('The sprint must belong to the issue team'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the null behavior and team constraint provide solid contextual guidance for the main use case.

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