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

Annotations only say destructive and idempotent; the description goes far beyond by disclosing that the delete is soft, that it atomically unassigns all stories (sprintId set to null), and that restore only re-assigns stories still unassigned. It also corrects a likely false assumption that cancelling unlocks deletion.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the state-machine precondition, then exclusions, then the side effect. No filler and nothing deferred to the end that an agent needs early.

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 destructive tool whose annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description supplies everything needed: eligibility rule, side effects, recovery path, and the alternative for out-of-scope cases. No output schema is needed since the effect is fully described.

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% and the single sprintId parameter is fully typed, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description still adds value by constraining the valid domain of that UUID to sprints in PLANNING, which the schema does not express.

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 ('soft-delete') and resource ('a sprint') plus an explicit scope restriction (must be in PLANNING). An agent can distinguish this from transition_sprint and restore_sprint without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use (PLANNING sprints), when-not (ACTIVE can never be deleted, CANCELLED is permanent), and names the correct alternative for running sprints: transition_sprint with to="CANCELLED". It also points forward to restore_sprint for recovery.

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