Create Sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds only the board scoping and says nothing about permissions, duplicate-sprint risk from non-idempotent creation, or what happens on invalid date ranges. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds almost no behavioral context beyond them.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity leaves other dimensions to carry the specification burden.

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?

With full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and an output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the operational context of creating a sprint, such as required dates, board constraints, or how this differs from updating a sprint, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, and the schema documents board_id, name, start_date, end_date, and the optional goal. The description adds no meaning beyond the board association, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create Jira sprint for a board.' An agent can tell this is a sprint-creation tool rather than a sprint-read or sprint-update tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling jira_update_sprint or jira_add_issues_to_sprint, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus jira_update_sprint, jira_add_issues_to_sprint, or jira_get_sprints_from_board. It also omits prerequisites such as the board needing to exist or the sprint dates needing to be valid. The phrase 'for a board' implies a board context but does not establish usage conditions.

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