Update Sprint

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

The description discloses important side effects beyond annotations: moving to 'closed' stamps the completion time, reopening clears it, and returning the updated sprint. It also clarifies null semantics for clearing dates. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true is not violated).

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?

Two concise sentences pack all essential information without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the core action, then details and id resolution follow naturally.

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?

Despite having no output schema and six parameters, the description covers the tool's behavior, return value, state effects, date handling, and id prerequisite. It is logically complete for an update operation and well-integrated with sibling list_sprints.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining state transitions, ISO 8601 format, and null-clearing behavior. This goes well beyond the schema field descriptions, providing meaningful semantics for all key parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a sprint and return it.' It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on sprint-specific fields and lifecycle states, and it directly relates to list_sprints for ID resolution.

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 gives explicit guidance: only id is required, and the id should be resolved via list_sprints. It also clarifies optional field semantics (ISO 8601 dates, null to clear). While it doesn't compare with siblings, the entity-specific nature plus prerequisite guidance is sufficient.

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