update_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose whether the update is partial or full, what fields are required/optional in practice, whether it validates existing sprint state, or what the return value is. 'Update an existing sprint' merely restates the tool name.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the essential purpose immediately and earns its place, though the brevity limits overall usefulness.

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?

For a 9-field mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is under-specified. The schema documents parameter names and types, but the description does not cover request semantics, success/error responses, required permissions, or whether fields are overwritten or merged with existing values.

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 100% and every parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional parameter context or usage constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Update an existing sprint' clearly states the action and target resource, and the word 'existing' helps distinguish it from create/get operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling sprint tools beyond that, so it falls just short of a top score.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond repeating the tool's primary action. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus create_sprint, delete_sprint, or list_sprints, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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