kanbn_start_sprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add useful behavioral detail: blank name generates 'Sprint N', blank start date defaults to now, and names must be unique. However, it does not disclose the return value, whether starting a sprint closes or affects an existing active sprint, or what happens on a duplicate-name violation (error vs. fallback). These are material side-effect gaps for a state-changing tool.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: the first states the core purpose, the second covers parameter defaults, and the third states the constraint. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 description is solid for the parameter surface area, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the agent gets no information about what the call returns, success/failure signals, or interactions with the currently active sprint. For a mutation with meaningful side effects, those omissions leave the description adequate but not complete.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter's role and basics, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it specifies the exact auto-generated name format ('Sprint N'), confirms the start-date default, and introduces the uniqueness constraint that governs name usage. This is meaningful added semantics for the name and start parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a new sprint on the Kanbn board.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from the sibling set, which contains no other sprint-related operation (the closest, kanbn_create_board, creates boards, not sprints). Scope is further clarified by noting what the tool accepts and the auto-generation/defaulting behavior.

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 context for use is clear: call this when a new sprint needs to be started on the Kanbn board. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, but none are necessary because no sibling tool competes for sprint-starting behavior. It would earn a 5 with an explicit when-not statement.

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