Move tickets to a sprint

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

Annotations already declare it a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the completed-sprint restriction and the required sprints:write permission — both critical before calling.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the key constraints. No wasted text.

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 2-param mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers permissions, allowed target values, and the completed-sprint exclusion. Return behavior isn't described but isn't essential here.

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 50%, so the description helps: it clarifies that 'sprint' accepts 'active', 'backlog', or a sprint name (matching and reinforcing the schema), and the plural phrasing signals the keys array. It doesn't mention the 50-ticket max, which the schema carries.

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?

States a specific verb (move) plus resource (tickets) plus destination (sprint or backlog). Clearly distinct from siblings like assign_ticket, change_status, or list_sprints.

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?

Gives clear context: move to 'active', a named sprint, or 'backlog', and excludes completed sprints. It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., use list_sprints to find a sprint name), but the when-to-use is unambiguous.

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