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

With only sparse annotation flags, the description carries the behavioral burden and excels. It reveals that a sprint has no separate started flag and runs when the clock sits inside its dates and it is not completed, that the start date is pulled to now while the planned end date is kept, and the no-running-sprint precondition – all genuinely additive context.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action, the second explains the domain model, and the third lays out constraints. Information is front-loaded and 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core effect, the underlying sprint model, and the key precondition. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single cycleId parameter, and the description never explicitly maps 'the sprint' to cycleId. The inference is straightforward from the tool name and parameter name, but the description adds little direct parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's type/length constraints.

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 ('Start') and resource ('a sprint'), and clarifies it applies only to a sprint that 'has not begun yet' by 'pulling its start date to now.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_cycle, complete_cycle, and update_cycle.

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 clear usage conditions: use when the sprint 'has not begun yet' and 'the team has to have no sprint running.' It implies when not to use (if a sprint is already running) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, stopping short of the top bar.

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