create_sprint

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 this is a creation tool, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permission requirements, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response looks like (e.g., returns the new sprint ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core information. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from parameter notes. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse.

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 of creating a sprint (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details like error conditions, response format, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing an existing board from 'get_agile_boards'). This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions that 'Sprint name and origin board ID are required' and 'Start date, end date, and goal are optional,' but the schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions and required fields. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new sprint') and identifies the resource ('sprint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_sprint' or 'close_sprint' beyond the basic verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify its unique role in the sprint lifecycle.

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 like 'update_sprint' or 'close_sprint', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing board. It only lists required and optional parameters, which is insufficient for usage decisions in a context with multiple sprint-related tools.

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