Close sprint

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by revealing irreversibility ('closes the sprint for good', 'cannot be reopened or edited through this API'), side effects on non-done issues, and the 'no undo' warning. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and adds critical operational context that the annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause earns its place: the action, the irreversibility, the side effect on issues, the precondition, and the safety hint. Ideal structure for an agent to parse quickly.

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 destructive write operation with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the call does, what happens to open issues, the active-sprint requirement, the lack of undo, and the recommended pre-check. No critical gaps remain.

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%, so the parameter details are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that sprintId must be the currently active sprint, which mirrors the schema, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what is present.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Completes the active sprint,' and then details the exact mechanics: Jira stamps completeDate, irrevocably closes the sprint, and relocates unfinished issues. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from related sprint tools like jira_start_sprint or jira_move_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?

Provides explicit usage context: only an 'active' sprint can be closed, and it instructs the agent to list open issues with jira_get_sprint_issues before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the precondition and suggested pre-flight step give solid guidance.

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