move_work_items_to_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses that children are not auto-included, but omits potential side effects (e.g., state changes, notifications) and permissions needed. The mechanism (updating iteration path) is clear, but deeper behavioral details are lacking.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, one line for behavioral nuance, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given moderate complexity, the description covers the core action, parameters, and a key behavioral trait (no children). It does not explain output format or error handling, but the presence of an output schema partially mitigates this. Still, for a mutation tool, more context on postconditions would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must define parameters. It provides clear, brief descriptions for all four parameters (project, work_item_ids, iteration_path, working_directory), adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, it could add more detail on allowed values or format.

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 verb 'move' and the resource 'work items to a target sprint', with the mechanism 'by updating their iteration path'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_work_item' and 'clone_work_item' by its specific focus on moving multiple items to a sprint.

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 explicitly notes that children are not auto-included, guiding callers to decide which IDs to move. However, it does not contrast with similar tools like 'update_work_item' or 'clone_work_item' to specify when to use this tool versus those.

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