Start sprint

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the write behavior (future becomes active), local validation of required dates, the board-level concurrency constraint, and the recommended recovery action when a start is rejected. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three dense sentences, all carrying substantive information. The core action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 state-changing operation with no output schema, the description covers the relevant lifecycle semantics, required inputs, a concurrency rule, and a failure-recovery path. The schema handles the parameter details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. Still, it adds meaning by emphasizing that startDate and endDate are mandatory and validated locally, and that sprintId must still reference a future sprint.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Starts a sprint') and immediately defines the state transition from 'future' to 'active'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_sprint, jira_close_sprint, and 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?

It gives concrete conditions: only a future sprint can be started, both dates are mandatory, and a board refuses a second active sprint unless parallel sprints are enabled. It advises re-reading jira_list_sprints on rejection. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the preconditions make the usage context clear.

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