mcp-github-project-manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without any details on permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, side effects (e.g., if it affects issue status or sprint metrics), error handling, or rate limits. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool, making it opaque and risky for an agent to use.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse quickly. While brevity can lead to underspecification, in terms of structure and efficiency, it earns full marks.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 2 undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool safely or effectively. This is inadequate for the tool's requirements.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The description adds no semantic information about 'sprintId' or 'issueIds', such as format examples, constraints, or what constitutes valid values. For a tool with 2 required parameters, this leaves the agent guessing, resulting in a low score.

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 'Remove issues from a sprint' clearly states the action (remove) and target (issues from a sprint), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'remove' entails (e.g., unassigning vs. deleting) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'remove_project_item' or 'clear_field_value', which might have overlapping functionality. It's vague but functional.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing sprint or valid issue IDs), exclusions, or related tools like 'add_issues_to_sprint' for context. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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