Delete Sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the destructive action and the Backlog restriction, but does not mention what happens to issues in the sprint (despite a moveToBacklog parameter), whether deletion is reversible, or any state requirements (e.g., cannot delete an active sprint). For a destructive tool, this is under-disclosed.

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 two short sentences: 'Delete a sprint. Cannot delete the default Backlog sprint.' Every word is purposeful, with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately gives a key constraint.

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?

The tool has an output schema and the input schema covers parameters, but the operation is destructive and has a non-obvious parameter (moveToBacklog). The description does not mention consequences for issues or any additional constraints beyond the Backlog restriction. It is minimally viable but leaves out important behavioral context that a user would need for safe invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (sprintId and moveToBacklog), so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Delete a sprint.' It also adds a specific constraint ('Cannot delete the default Backlog sprint'), which distinguishes it from generic deletion and provides key scope information. This is a specific verb+resource pair with a useful nuance.

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 when to use the tool (to delete a sprint) and provides one exclusion (cannot delete the default Backlog sprint). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., completeSprint, updateSprint) or provide criteria for choosing delete over other sprint operations. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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