sprint_close

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviours: gate re-validation and the exact scope of `force` (only executable gate failures, not all failures). It omits the rest of the mutation profile — whether closing is reversible, what permissions/claim are required, and what the call returns on gate failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the gate/changelog/close sequence leads and the force caveat follows. Slightly dense (semicolon-joined conditional), but every clause earns its place.

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 six-parameter, annotation-free terminal mutation with no output schema, the description does too little: five parameters are undocumented and there is no statement of what a failed gate re-check looks like or whether the changelog is written before or after validation.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains only one of them (`force`). The coverage block, agent_token, client_agent_id, client_session_id, and claim_generation — all likely required in practice despite being optional in schema — are left entirely unexplained.

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 three concrete actions (re-check gates, write SemVer changelog, close sprint), which is a specific verb+resource picture an agent can act on. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours like sprint_archive or sprint_detach, which also terminate a sprint's active life.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus sprint_archive, sprint_detach, or subsprint_get, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a claim/agent_token must be held first). The only conditional given is what `force` does, which is usage-adjacent but not a use-when rule.

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