move_to_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the sprint-state constraint. It does not say whether moving a ticket already assigned to another sprint overwrites it, what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, or how failures on individual tickets are reported.

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 tight sentence with the verb and destination front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The operation is low-complexity (2 fully documented params, no nesting), so the schema does most of the work. Still, as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves side effects (overwriting existing sprint assignment, partial failure handling) unexplained.

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 both parameters (sprint, ticket_ids) are already fully documented with examples. The description's "by sprint name or ID" merely restates the schema's sprint field and adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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"), resource ("Jira tickets") and destination ("active or future sprint"), which is precise and actionable. No sibling tool touches sprints, so no sibling differentiation is needed or given; the scope constraint (active/future only) adds useful precision.

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 phrase "active or future sprint" implies when the tool applies (not closed sprints), giving implied usage guidance. However, it never states prerequisites (e.g., board/sprint membership, permissions) or when to use this versus update_ticket/transition_ticket, so guidance remains incomplete.

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