kaiten_update_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the update action and repeats the active=false finishing behavior that is already present in the input schema, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, what side effects occur (beyond the schema's archive_done_cards field), or any permission requirements.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 description plus full schema coverage is adequate for basic invocation, but without annotations or an output schema it leaves gaps around return values, side effects of finishing a sprint, and required permissions. It is minimally viable but not rich enough for a mutating tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema; the active=false guidance duplicates the active parameter's 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update a Kaiten sprint.' It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as kaiten_create_sprint or kaiten_delete_sprint beyond the tool name.

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 gives one useful usage hint: set active=false to finish/complete the sprint. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus creating, getting, or deleting a sprint, and provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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