update_sprint

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only says 'update' and does not indicate whether the update is partial or full, whether it is destructive (overwrites fields), what happens if required fields are omitted, or what the response contains. This is a critical failure given the tool modifies data.

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?

At one sentence, it is concise, but it is too sparse, omitting important details like scope and behavior. The bracketed '[Project Management]' category is mildly helpful but does not earn a higher score.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or parameter interactions, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no new information beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to high coverage. The description does not clarify parameter relationships or constraints not in 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 states 'Update an existing sprint', which is a clear verb+resource pairing, but it does not specify what aspects of the sprint are updatable (e.g., name, dates, capacity) or distinguish this from the sibling 'create_sprint' tool. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_sprint' or other update tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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