Move issues to sprint

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

The description reveals important behavior beyond the annotations: ranking is unchanged, oversized batches send nothing, Jira may partially accept/reject issues, and retries should be state-aware. It complements the write-oriented annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and does not contradict them.

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?

Four dense, purposeful sentences cover purpose, alternatives, edge-case behavior, and retry guidance without fluff. Every sentence adds semantic value, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: cap behavior, ranking impact, partial acceptance, and safe retry strategy. The plan/apply mechanics are already fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical 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%, so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds useful behavioral context like the 50-issue cap, but it does not need to compensate for any parameter-level documentation gaps.

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 states a specific action ('Moves up to 50 issues into a sprint') and distinguishes itself from jira_update_issue by noting sprint is not an editable field there. This gives an agent a precise mental model of what the tool does and how it differs from a close alternative.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent this is the only way to set a sprint, naming jira_update_issue as the non-viable alternative. It also gives practical rules: batches over 50 are refused outright, and failures should not be blindly retried—re-read the sprint first.

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