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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: goal=null clears the field, endDate must be >= startDate, and the required permission/plan gate. This is a meaningful 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?

Dense but front-loaded: fields first, then permissions, then validation, then plan gate. Every sentence carries information; no filler. Slightly packed but appropriate for the number of constraints conveyed.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description supplies permissions, validation, plan gate, and field semantics. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; the only gap is alternative-tool routing.

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 only 33% (just the ISO date params), so the description must compensate. It does: it maps each updatable field, documents the null-to-clear semantics of goal, and states the cross-field startDate/endDate constraint the schema cannot express. Status enum values are already in the schema, so listing them is minor redundancy.

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 verb+resource (Update sprint) and enumerates the exact mutable fields (name, goal, status, dates), so an agent knows precisely what it touches. It stops short of 5 because it never differentiates itself from adjacent siblings like update_task or update_epic.

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?

It clearly states access prerequisites (sprint.manage, project MEMBER+, or org admin) and the sprints (PRO+) plan gate, which is useful context for whether a call will succeed. However, it gives no when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing (e.g., move_task_to_sprint or create_sprint_with_tasks), leaving selection to inference.

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