Archive Tracker sprint

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds real context the annotations cannot: archive hides rather than removes, version is mandatory for optimistic locking, and the API returns 428 if it is omitted. It does not address reversibility (can a sprint be unarchived?) or permission requirements, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with the effect front-loaded and the critical parameter requirement second. Every clause earns its place: no restatement of the tool name and no boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes it returns the updated sprint, and it covers the one non-obvious parameter requirement and its error mode. It omits whether archiving is reversible and what happens to a sprint's issues, which would complete the picture for a mutation of this kind.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by naming the exact tool to fetch version from (sprints_get) and explaining the failure consequence (HTTP 428) of leaving it null, which the schema's 'optimistic lock' note does not convey.

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 (Archive) and resource (sprint), then immediately clarifies the actual effect: it hides the sprint from the board's active sprint list. This distinguishes it from the destructive sibling tracker_sprints_delete and from tracker_sprints_start without the agent needing to open either schema.

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 scopes usage to a finished sprint and points to sprints_get as the source of the required version value. However, it never explicitly contrasts archiving with sprints_delete (permanent removal) or with sprints_start/update, so the agent must infer when archiving is preferable to those alternatives.

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