Move issues to backlog

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: status, assignee, and project are untouched; the board selection is not under caller control; oversized batches are rejected with nothing sent; and partial failures are not blindly retried. This complements the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true annotations with useful operational detail.

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 compact yet information-dense. The primary action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes: semantics, inverse relationship, untouched fields, board decision, batch refusal, and failure handling. There is no filler.

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 complexity, rich schema, and informative annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what the operation does, its effect on issue fields, its relationship to a sibling tool, the batch limit, and how failures behave. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough behavioral detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the parameter descriptions already document issues, apply, plan_id, and profile thoroughly. The tool description reinforces the 50-issue cap, but that is already stated in the schema. It does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 and resource ('Sends up to 50 issues back to the backlog') and explains the operation in Jira's own terms. It also differentiates from jira_move_to_sprint by naming it as the inverse and by noting it is the only way to clear a sprint field, so an agent cannot confuse it with siblings.

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 explicitly says this is the inverse of jira_move_to_sprint and the only way to clear a sprint field, which tells an agent when to pick this tool over alternatives. It also warns that the board is decided by the project, not the caller, and that oversized batches are refused outright, giving clear boundary conditions for use.

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