Create Sprint

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the obvious act of creation – no mention of side effects, permissions, or what happens on duplicate names, etc.

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 entire description is a single sentence, 'Create Jira sprint for a board,' with zero filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though under-specified in other dimensions.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description's job is minimal. However, it lacks usage context or alternative tool guidance, making it merely adequate for a simple create tool.

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?

The input schema describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-specific information, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 tool creates a Jira sprint for a board, using the specific verb 'create' and naming both the resource (sprint) and target (board). It is distinct from sibling tools like jira_update_sprint or jira_get_sprints_from_board by the action verb, though it doesn't explicitly call out those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_update_sprint or jira_get_sprints_from_board. The description is purely definitional and does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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