sprint_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation bypasses normal close gates, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not detail side effects, reversibility, or permissions required. This is an intermediate level of transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action and resource, and immediately providing the key qualifier about bypassing gates.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose. However, as a lifecycle/mutation tool without annotations, it omits important context such as whether the sprint must be active, what 'archiving' entails for related data, and any prerequisites. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

The schema defines 'reason' as a required string. The description adds semantic meaning by calling it a 'recovery reason', clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's type constraints. This is valuable but doesn't go further into format or examples.

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 clearly states the action ('Archive') on a specific resource ('the sprint') and specifies the purpose ('with a recovery reason, bypassing normal close gates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sprint_close by implying a distinct archival pathway.

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 implies when to use this tool: when needing to archive with a recovery reason and bypass normal close gates. It clearly conveys an exceptional use case, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity in the lifecycle.

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