create_sprint

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to establish the write-operation profile. It adds genuinely non-obvious context: the operation targets the *current* project implicitly (no project parameter exists), and there is no delete-sprint API, so the creation is effectively irreversible through this toolset. The description does not cover whether duplicate names are allowed or what happens if start_date is after end_date.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then parameter conventions, then the important API limitation. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the implicit current-project scoping is stated. What remains thin is whether owner_ids must resolve to actual project members and any constraint between start_date and end_date, which matter for a mutation that cannot be deleted afterward.

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 carry the load. It does compensate for the two ambiguous parameters: date format YYYY-MM-DD for start_date and end_date, and owner_ids are member account IDs (not names or emails). The name parameter and date ordering or optionality are left implicit, which keeps it from a 5.

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: "在当前项目创建迭代" (create a sprint in the current project), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings get_sprint and list_sprints. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create-vs-read distinction is unambiguous.

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 implies usage: it says the sprint is created in the current project, so the agent knows no project ID is needed, and it notes that Yunxiao has no delete-sprint API. This preempts a pointless search for delete_sprint. However, it never states prerequisites, such as whether owner_ids must be existing project members, or when to prefer creating a sprint over other organization units.

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