Add issues to sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral facts – a hard 50-issue cap and the conditional resolution rules – but says nothing about what happens to issues already in another sprint, closed sprints, or partial-failure behavior on a batch.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and the 50-item limit come first, then the parameter disambiguation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The trickiest conditional logic (sprint resolution, board/project fallback) is well covered, but with no output schema the definition still leaves the return shape and error/partial-success behavior unexplained, which matters for a 50-item batch mutation.

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 coverage is only 20% (only `site` is documented), so the description carries most of the burden, and it does well: it explains that `sprint` accepts an id, name, 'active' or 'next', and that `boardId`/`projectKey` are conditionally required with a stated default. It does not show the expected `issueKeys` format (e.g. 'PROJ-123'), leaving one param partly implicit.

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 ('Moves') and resource ('up to 50 issues into a sprint'), which is unambiguous against siblings like jira_get_sprint_issues or jira_get_sprints. It never names an alternative, but no confusion is possible given the distinct operation.

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 conditional prerequisites ('name/active/next need boardId or projectKey') and a default ('projectKey defaults to the first issue's project'), which helps an agent decide how to call it. However, it never states when to use this tool versus jira_get_sprints or another sprint operation, and offers no when-not guidance.

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