jira_update_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions raising ValueError for read-only mode or client unavailability, but does not detail possible side effects (e.g., closing a sprint changes state, impacts on issues), permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 structured as a Python docstring with Args, Returns, Raises sections, which is organized. However, it is somewhat verbose, repeating parameter information already in the schema. The purpose statement is front-loaded, but the rest could be more concise given schema coverage.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and an existing output schema (context signals indicate has_output_schema=true). The description does not explain what happens on success/failure beyond returning a JSON string, lacks information about idempotency, partial updates, or relationship to other sprint operations. The Raises section helps but is not enough for a complete picture.

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 documents all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description merely lists the parameters without adding extra semantic detail (e.g., date format, valid state values beyond the enum hint, or constraints). Therefore, the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 'Update jira sprint', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like jira_create_sprint, but does not explicitly contrast with other update tools, though the resource 'sprint' is distinct among siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_create_sprint for creating, or other update tools). The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.

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