sprrint_sprints_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds some value by disclosing the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and that 'take' pulls comma-separated task keys into the sprint. However, it does not disclose validation behavior, side effects, idempotency, or response behavior for this mutation tool.

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 short sentences with minimal waste; the purpose is front-loaded before format details. The prose is somewhat telegraphic and grammatically awkward ('Dates are YYYY-MM-DD', 'take is comma-separated task keys to pull in'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers date and take formats but omits the meaning of name, goal, status, project, and category, and gives no sense of what the tool returns or expects operationally.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for starts_on/ends_on (date format) and take (comma-separated keys), which the schema does not provide. However, it leaves the required 'name' parameter and goal, status, project, and category unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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, 'Create a sprint,' which clearly identifies the operation. The action verb 'create' distinguishes it from sibling sprint tools (sprints_update, sprints_delete, sprints_list, sprints_get) without needing to read their schemas.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sprints_update or tasks_create. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'create,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing provided.

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