Create a new development sprint in GitHub Projects by specifying title, description, dates, and associated issues for structured project planning.
Create a new development sprint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| startDate | Yes | ||
| endDate | Yes | ||
| issueIds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'create' implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 complexity of a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and return values, making it insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'issueIds' should contain, date formats for 'startDate' and 'endDate', or constraints on 'title' and 'description'. With 5 undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.
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 verb ('create') and resource ('development sprint'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_milestone' or 'create_project', which also create development artifacts, so it's not fully specific to sibling context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plan_sprint' or 'create_milestone'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing project or milestone, or exclusions for overlapping functionality with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.