Add Issues to Sprint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by mentioning possible errors (ValueError for read-only mode or client unavailability) and the return type (JSON string with success message). However, it doesn't disclose side effects like overwriting existing sprint assignments or validation failures.

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 structured with Args, Returns, and Raises sections, which is easy to parse. It is concise without extraneous information, though the Args section largely mirrors the schema. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, parameters, return type, and error cases. It does not explain the success message structure, but the output schema likely handles that. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters. The description's repetition of parameter details ('The ID of the sprint', 'Comma-separated issue keys') does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states 'Add issues to a Jira sprint' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_create_sprint (creates sprint) and jira_get_sprint_issues (retrieves issues), making it easy for an agent to select the right tool for adding issues.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a ValueError for read-only mode, but does not indicate scenarios where adding issues might be inappropriate (e.g., sprint is closed) or suggest alternative tools like jira_update_sprint for other sprint modifications.

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