Move Issues to Backlog

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations: it removes issues from any sprint. This is valuable context for a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). It doesn't cover permissions or reversibility, but the sprint-removal detail provides meaningful transparency beyond the structural annotations.

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, direct sentence that leads with the verb and target. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description fully covers the necessary context. It states the primary action and the side effect (sprint removal), and the output schema handles return value details, so nothing critical is missing.

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% for the single parameter issue_keys, which already includes a clear example format. The description adds no further parameter-specific details, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 issues to the backlog') and adds the specific consequence ('removing them from any sprint'), which distinguishes it from more general tools like jira_move_issue. The verb and target are explicit and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the intent is to place issues in the backlog and pull them out of sprints, but it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given there is a sibling tool jira_move_issue that could overlap, the lack of contrast leaves guidance implied rather than explicit.

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