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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: it issues skip-and-continue semantics ('out-of-scope or missing tasks are skipped with reasons; the sprint is still created'), states the required permission (sprint.manage), and enforces a 50-task cap. Annotations already cover the destructive/read-only/idempotent profile, so this useful operational detail pushes it above baseline.

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 front-loaded sentences that lead with the atomic create-and-move purpose, then parameters, then failure/permission semantics. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parameter enumeration slightly repeats what the schema already carries.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers creation, task movement, partial-failure behavior, limits, and permissions. It doesn't describe the response shape or idempotencyKey usage, but the core behavioral surface an agent needs to invoke it safely is present.

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?

With 86% schema coverage the schema already documents most params, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: taskIds must be 'existing tasks on the same project,' and it reinforces the ISO date format and the 50-item limit. This is beyond the baseline where the schema would otherwise carry the load.

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?

States a specific combined verb+resource: 'Create a sprint on a project AND move existing tasks into it in one atomic call.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_task, create_project, and move_task_to_sprint, since the atomic coupling of the two operations is called out explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: creating a sprint and assigning existing same-project tasks in a single atomic call, with the taskIds scoped to 'existing tasks on the same project.' It stops short of naming the alternative (e.g. move_task_to_sprint) or stating explicit exclusions, so it's a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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