Add Issues to Sprint

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not explain what happens to the issues (e.g., movement within the sprint, potential overwriting of previous sprint assignments) or any side effects.

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 that wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it is minimal in content.

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 simple two-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks nuances like prerequisites (e.g., issues must be in the backlog) or potential edge cases, making it only marginally complete.

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% for both parameters (sprint_id and issue_keys). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add issues to a Jira sprint' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It is distinct from sibling tools like jira_create_sprint or jira_move_issues_to_backlog, though it doesn't add extra scoping details.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it is appropriate for adding issues from the backlog or if other tools like jira_transition_issue should be used first.

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