create_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write operation but discloses nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields get defaults, whether title collisions fail, or whether the new sprint is returned.

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 three-word fragment with no waste but also no useful front-loading. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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?

A mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to cover behavior and return expectations. The fully documented schema helps, but the description leaves the agent without any operational context.

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 100% -- every parameter, including date formats and the status alias list, is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Create a sprint" restates the tool name almost verbatim and adds no distinguishing detail. It does convey the verb (create) and resource (sprint), but nothing separates it from siblings like create_task or list_sprints beyond the obvious noun.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_sprints or change_sprint_status. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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