Create Tracker sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: it returns the new sprint, and the target board must have sprints enabled. It does not mention permissions or failure behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 core action and return value front-loaded and the constraints following. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 create tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering the mutation profile, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential prerequisites and the return value. It is close to complete, though it omits any note on permissions or what happens on an invalid board.

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 the schema already documents name, board.id, start_date and end_date. The description restates the required fields and the YYYY-MM-DD format and board id shape, which the schema already provides, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a sprint on an agile board') and adds that it returns the new sprint, which is unambiguous against siblings like tracker_sprints_update/delete/start. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It states a precondition ('The board must have sprints enabled'), which is useful context for selecting this tool. However, it offers no guidance on when to use create versus update/start/archive or the ordering of operations, so usage is only implied.

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