jira_add_issues_to_sprint

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the sprint must be active or future, whether issues already in another sprint are moved or rejected, or what happens on partial failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good, but it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise for a mutation tool with meaningful edge cases.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a minimal annotation, the description omits the operational context an agent needs: sprint state constraints, behavior for issues already in a sprint, and return/failure semantics.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the cross-reference to jira_list_sprints for sprintId and an example format for issues. The description adds nothing beyond this, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (move) and resource (issues into a sprint), which is distinguishable from the sibling jira_move_issues_to_backlog by direction. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling or scope the operation, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_move_issues_to_backlog, nor any prerequisites (e.g., sprint must be active/future). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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