jira_move_issues_to_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate what happens if issues are already in a different sprint, if the sprint is closed, or any side effects. The minimal description fails to inform about error conditions or limitations.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure for readability, but overall efficient.

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 the simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on how to obtain sprint_id or issue_keys, and does not cover typical usage scenarios or boundaries.

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 100% with clear descriptions ('Sprint ID', 'List of issue keys'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond summarizing the tool's purpose. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage, but no additional value.

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 (move) and target (issues into a sprint), distinguishing it from siblings like jira_move_issues_to_backlog. However, it does not specify any scope (e.g., from backlog or other sprints), leaving some ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jira_move_issues_to_backlog. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., issues must be in backlog) or constraints (e.g., cannot move issues already in a sprint).

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