sprint_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses bypassing of normal close gates but lacks details on side effects, such as what happens to associated items, whether the action is reversible, or required permissions. 'Archive' is ambiguous in its effects.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, no fluff, front-loaded with action and resource.

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 bypassing normal processes, more context would be helpful (e.g., what happens to sprint items, permission requirements, or error states). No output schema provided. Minimally complete for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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?

One required parameter 'reason' with minLength 1. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds the context that it is a 'recovery reason', which gives semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, no format or examples are provided.

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?

Description clearly states the action (archive) and resource (sprint), with a specific nuance: 'bypassing normal close gates'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'sprint_close' which likely closes normally.

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?

Implies usage for exceptional circumstances where normal close gates need bypassing, with a recovery reason. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs not use, nor provides alternatives among siblings like 'sprint_close' or 'sprint_resume'.

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