Update Sprint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However, the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever – nothing about what a state change does to in-flight issues, whether closed sprints can be reopened, or what permissions are needed – which is a real gap for a destructive mutation tool.

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?

It is short but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; the single sentence carries no actionable content. There is no structure to speak of, no front-loaded scope statement.

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?

For a six-parameter destructive mutation with optional fields defaulting to null, the description says nothing about how omitted fields behave, what permissions are required, or how state transitions are validated. The output schema covers return values, but the call-side context an agent needs is missing.

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%, with every one of the six parameters documented in the schema itself, including the state enum-like values (future|active|closed). The description contributes nothing beyond that, so the 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?

The description "Update jira sprint" is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding only the word 'update' on top of what the name already says. It does not clarify what aspects of a sprint can be changed, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like jira_create_sprint or jira_add_issues_to_sprint.

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 tool versus alternatives such as jira_create_sprint or jira_add_issues_to_sprint, and no mention of prerequisites like permissions or valid sprint states. The agent must infer everything from the name and schema.

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