tasks_add_sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description contributes nothing further: no note on required permissions, whether duplicate titles are allowed, whether start/end are mandatory in practice, or what happens to existing sprints. For a mutation tool it leaves all behavioral context to the schema.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded but is under-specified rather than concise; it carries no information an agent could not get from the tool name. Brevity here reflects missing content, not economy.

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?

With four parameters and no output schema, the description should at least indicate the parent context of the new sprint and any constraints linking start and end dates. None of that is present, so an agent must guess at invocation context.

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%, so title, goal, start and end (including the YYYY-MM-DD format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

"Create a sprint" restates the tool name (tasks_add_sprint) almost verbatim and adds no specificity about scope, such as which project or workspace the sprint belongs to. An agent cannot distinguish it from the sprint-related sibling tasks_sprint based on this text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus tasks_sprint, tasks_add, or tasks_edit, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a project/board must already exist) are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb "Create."

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