Add Issue to Active Sprint

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes further by naming the concrete no-op triggers, enumerating failure reasons with candidate payloads, and describing both success and skipped return shapes despite there being no output schema. This is materially more than the annotations carry.

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 short sentences ordered as purpose, edge cases, error handling, return values — front-loaded and free of filler. The compact JSON-ish shape fragments convey return structure in far fewer tokens than prose would.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values, and it does for success, skip, and both error classes. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning the schema cannot: boardId is only needed as a retry after a multiple-scrum-boards failure, not something to supply upfront. issueKey semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is fine given its pattern example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a Jira issue to its project's active scrum sprint') with the implicit scope resolution (its project's board) made explicit. Clearly distinct from siblings like jcm_editIssue or jcm_transitionIssue, which do not touch sprint membership.

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?

Gives explicit no-op conditions (already in an active sprint, no scrum board) and a concrete recovery path tied to a specific failure reason: retry with boardId on multiple-scrum-boards, handle no-active-sprint and multiple-active-sprints manually in Jira. The agent knows both when to call it and what to do when it fails.

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