create_sprint_task

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details: auto-resolving the sprint list and current user, fallback behavior when parent_task_id is in a different list, the list_id_override result field, and omission rules for optional parameters. Annotations only provide destructiveHint:false, so this context goes well beyond structured 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by essential behavioral notes and a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers prerequisites, edge-case behavior with parent lists, and points to a specific result field. This is sufficient for correct 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?

The input schema has zero descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description's Args section fully compensates by documenting each parameter, including defaults (assign_to_me), format expectations (parent_task_id), and omission semantics (points/status omitted unless given). This is exactly what the schema lacks.

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?

Clearly states it creates a task in the current sprint, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'with sensible defaults' adds nuance, and the mention of 'current sprint' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating a task in the current sprint) and lists configuration prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-sprint tasks or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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