Modify sprint details including title, dates, description, and status for GitHub project management.
Update a development sprint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sprintId | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized for a basic purpose statement, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 (mutation tool with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for reliable agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters, leaving all 6 parameters (sprintId, title, description, startDate, endDate, status) undocumented. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 'Update a development sprint' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('development sprint'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'update_milestone', which have similar update operations on different resources.
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), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'create_sprint' or 'plan_sprint'. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.