Edit Tracker sprint

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: PATCH-style partial update semantics, the optimistic-locking version requirement and its 428 failure mode, and the fact that it returns the updated sprint. The annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) cover safety, and the description complements them without repeating.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the edit action and partial-update semantics, then the ID/version sourcing, then the return value. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: required version for locking, its failure mode, ID sourcing, and the return value. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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, but the description adds real meaning: version is the sprint's current version sourced from sprints_get and is required for optimistic locking, and sprint_id comes from sprints_list. It largely echoes the body's partial-update note, keeping it just short of 5.

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 and resource ("Edit a sprint") and adds scope detail ("only the fields set in body are changed"). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling sprint mutations like tracker_sprints_start, tracker_sprints_archive, or tracker_sprints_delete, so it falls short of full sibling routing.

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 concrete when/how guidance: obtain sprint_id from sprints_list, pass version from sprints_get, and notes the API rejects calls without it (428). It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or naming alternative sprint-mutation siblings for status changes.

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