Update Sprint

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals that the operation is destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as irreversible state changes or permission requirements, but the annotation covers the key risk profile. The description neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation.

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 is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no irrelevant information. While it could be more informative, it is appropriately sized for a simple update operation and avoids verbosity.

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 high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description's minimalism is partially justified. However, it lacks any contextual cues about how this tool fits into a workflow, such as differentiating from sibling sprint tools or explaining the impact of destructive updates. The description is barely adequate for an agent to choose confidently.

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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify formats, defaults, or interactions between parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 'Update jira sprint' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool updates a sprint. However, it does not distinguish this from related sibling tools like jira_create_sprint or jira_add_issues_to_sprint beyond the obvious 'update' action, and it omits what aspects of the sprint are updatable.

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. No context is provided about prerequisites, when updating a sprint is appropriate, or what to avoid. The description simply states what it does without any situational advice.

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