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

Annotations already declare this as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds important behavior beyond them: closed sprints reject metadata edits, concurrent human edits are conflict-guarded, and force should only be used with explicit human approval. That is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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?

The description is four front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. Field scope, null handling, sibling routing, closed-state behavior, and conflict handling each appear in a compact sequence.

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 destructive, conflict-prone sprint mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main hazards: null clearing, closed-sprint rejection, and human-edit conflict behavior. It leaves minor gaps around sprintId meaning and exact partial-update semantics, but those are less critical because the schema enforces required parameters and patch behavior is implied.

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 description coverage is only 50%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds useful semantics by listing mutable fields and explaining that null clears nullable fields, but it does not explain sprintId or name semantics beyond field inclusion, and its force explanation adds little beyond the detailed schema description for force.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Patch sprint metadata' for name, startDate, endDate, and goal. It also explicitly routes status changes to stride.transition_sprint, making the boundary with that sibling unambiguous.

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 names the alternative tool for status transitions and the condition for using it. It also states when edits are rejected (closed sprints) and gives an explicit approval gate for force, so the agent has clear use and avoid conditions.

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