move_to_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Move issues to a sprint' implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose permissions needed, reversibility, error behavior, or side effects. It adds only the basic action, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and structured with an Args section. It contains no filler, though the parameter documentation is minimal rather than maximally informative.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is missing important context: when to use it, how sprint_id should be obtained, and what happens on success or failure. The output schema covers return values, but the invocation context remains thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters: 'sprint_id: Target sprint ID' and 'issue_keys: List of issue keys to move (e.g., ["KAN-1", "KAN-2"])'. The example for issue_keys is useful, but sprint_id format and constraints remain underspecified.

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 verb and resource: 'Move issues to a sprint.' It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent mutation tools such as update_issue, transition_issue, or bulk_transition, so it misses the highest bar for sibling distinction.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like transition_issue, bulk_transition, or update_issue. It does not state prerequisites, such as whether the sprint must be active or whether issues must belong to the same board/project.

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