jira_move_issues_to_backlogMoves specified Jira issues to the backlog and removes them from any sprint.
Move issues to the backlog, removing them from any sprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_keys | Yes | Comma-separated issue keys (e.g., 'PROJ-1,PROJ-2') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description usefully adds that sprint assignment is stripped from 'any' sprint, but omits batch behavior (does one bad key fail the whole call?), permission requirements, and board/backlog scoping, which matter for a destructive batch call.
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, front-loaded with the action and closing with the side effect. Nothing redundant.
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 and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a destructive multi-key mutation it is silent on partial-failure semantics and on whether 'backlog' is board-scoped or global, leaving real ambiguity for the agent.
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% and the single parameter's comma-separated key format is documented with an example in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Move issues to the backlog') plus the key side effect ('removing them from any sprint'), which distinguishes it from sibling read tools and from sprint-assignment tools like jira_add_issues_to_sprint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named jira_move_issue, which an agent could confuse with this one.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as jira_add_issues_to_sprint or jira_move_issue, and no prerequisites (e.g., the issue must currently be in a sprint/board). The 'removing them from any sprint' clause implies the use case but gives no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.