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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the real side effect: stories un-assigned during the delete get relinked only if still unassigned, and moved stories are left alone. That conditional relink semantics is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot convey. It repeats the idempotent hint rather than adding to it, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 tight clauses: what it does, what happens to related stories, and the idempotency note. The verb and the cleared field are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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?

There's no output schema, so the description correctly names the returned value (relinkedStoryCount). For a single-parameter, non-destructive mutation, the caller has everything needed: precondition, side effects, and return data.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting sprintId as a UUID. The description refers to 'a sprint' but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so this is the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Restore a soft-deleted sprint') plus the mechanism (clears deletedAt), which cleanly separates it from delete_sprint, update_sprint, and the other restore_* siblings. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the 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?

The precondition is explicit: the sprint must have been soft-deleted, and calling it on an already-active row is a no-op. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state a when-not case, but the 'soft-deleted' qualifier is a clear selection signal.

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