create_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the basic create action. It does not mention side effects, permissions, validation requirements, or potential conflicts, making the tool's behavior opaque for an unprecedentedly simple description.

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 brief but merely restates the tool name in sentence form. It does not earn its place by adding substantive information, and the brevity comes at the expense of necessary context.

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?

Despite the schema and output schema, the description lacks critical context about the sprint creation process, such as what happens on success, potential errors, or how this fits into broader workflows. The minimal information makes it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with names and descriptions for all four required parameters, including date formats. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('sprint'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It is not a tautology, as it forms a complete sentence, but it lacks any contextual scope or differentiator from other create tools, though the resource name is sufficiently distinct.

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. The description simply says 'Create a new sprint' with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for selecting it.

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