Start Tracker sprint

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), yet the description goes well beyond them: it names the exact state transition, the timestamp side effect, the optimistic-locking contract, the 428 failure without a version, and that the updated sprint is returned. That is precisely the extra behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the effect and scope, then the prerequisite/error condition in the second clause. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, prerequisite, error behavior, and return value, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits permission requirements and the behavior when a sprint is already in progress, which would be the remaining useful details.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by stating that ``version`` is required in practice for optimistic locking and returns HTTP 428 without it — which corrects the schema's misleading nullable/default-null presentation. It adds no further meaning to ``sprint_id``.

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?

Specific verb + resource (start a sprint) immediately clarified with the concrete side effects: status becomes ``inProgress`` and the actual start time is stamped. This distinguishes it from siblings like tracker_sprints_update, tracker_sprints_archive, and tracker_sprints_create without needing the 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?

It tells the agent where the required ``version`` must come from (``sprints_get``), which is practical routing guidance. However, it never names the alternative state-transition tools (e.g. archive/update) or states when *not* to call this (already-started, completed sprints), so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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