kaiten_delete_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing a non-obvious failure mode: the API may return 405 because sprint deletion may not be supported. It also explains the domain rule that sprints can only be completed. It stops short of discussing permissions, side effects, or success response, but the key behavioral trap is surfaced.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the important caveat follows immediately. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, and the description plus schema cover the essential selection and invocation needs. The 405 warning is critical context that an agent needs before calling. A mention of expected success response would round it out, but nothing essential is missing for basic use.

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 fully documents the only parameter, sprint_id, with type and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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: 'Delete a Kaiten sprint.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from other sprint tools like kaiten_get_sprint or kaiten_update_sprint, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when deletion may not be appropriate by noting sprints can only be completed, giving an agent a hint to consider completion instead. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to an alternative tool or state concrete conditions for choosing this tool over others.

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