Add Issues to Sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally; the description adds no behavioral context of its own. It doesn't say whether issues are removed from a previous sprint, whether the sprint must be active, or what conflicts occur on failure.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, which is appropriately sized in a literal sense, but it also does no work beyond echoing the title. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a destructive, open-world mutation with only two required parameters, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, and failure modes. The agent has to guess at behavior an operator would reasonably expect to be stated.

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 100% for both parameters, including the comma-separated format example for issue_keys, so the schema carries the burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 restates the tool name and title verbatim ('Add issues to a Jira sprint') without adding scope, constraints, or contrast with siblings like jira_move_issues_to_backlog or jira_get_sprint_issues. An agent learns nothing beyond what the name already declares.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. Nothing tells the agent when to add issues to a sprint versus moving them to the backlog, creating a new sprint, or leaving them unassigned.

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