azure_create_iteration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious side effect (creation) and does not mention anything about permissions, validation rules, overwrite behavior, or response format. This is minimal and insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects beyond the basic creation action.

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 a single short sentence in Portuguese ('Cria uma nova iteration/sprint') that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward create operation.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite sparse. However, the schema descriptions cover parameter semantics adequately, so the description is minimally acceptable for a simple create operation. It lacks additional context about what happens on success, error conditions, or relationship to other resources, but for a basic CRUD tool this is on the lower end of adequate.

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%, with all five parameters (name, path, team, startDate, finishDate) individually described. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides adequate semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Cria uma nova iteration/sprint' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (iteration/sprint). This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like azure_list_iterations, azure_delete_iteration, and azure_get_current_iteration, which perform different operations on the same resource.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to alternative tools for similar actions. The only implied usage is from the name 'create', but the description adds no contextual information.

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