set_iteration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It identifies the tool as a write operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or what happens if the iteration path is invalid. The description is too sparse for full transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides format and context. Every word is necessary, and the information is front-loaded. No wasted content.

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's simplicity (2 simple parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, format, and a key consequence (appearance on Sprint board). It lacks details on error cases or prerequisites, but for this low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 covers both parameters with 100% descriptive coverage. The description adds value by specifying the format 'ProjectName\Sprint N' for the iteration_path parameter and explaining the business requirement (appearance on Sprint board). This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Assign a work item to a sprint iteration.' It specifies the exact action and resource, and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on iteration assignment, which is a specific operation not covered by general update tools.

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 mentions that iteration assignment is 'Required for items to appear on the Sprint board,' providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like update_work_item, and lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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