Update Sprint

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

The description discloses that the tool raises ValueError if in read-only mode or if the Jira client is unavailable, which adds context beyond the destructiveHint: true annotation. It also specifies the return format (JSON string or error message). However, it doesn't detail any side effects (e.g., impact on sprint issues) or rate limits.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. However, it repeats information already present in the schema, making it slightly longer than necessary. It could be more succinct by omitting the parameter list and focusing on behavioral insights.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of a detailed input schema and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it updates, return format, and error conditions. It lacks an example or typical use case but is adequate for a mutation tool with clear annotations.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats the parameter names, their optionality, and for 'state' provides valid enum values (future|active|closed). This adds minimal 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 the tool updates a Jira sprint and lists the specific fields that can be modified (name, state, start_date, end_date, goal). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_sprint (create) and jira_get_sprints_from_board (read). The verb 'update' and resource 'jira sprint' are precise.

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 implies usage when you need to modify an existing sprint but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, such as jira_create_sprint for new sprints or jira_transition_issue for issue state changes. No 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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