delete_sprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation ('irreversible'), describes side effects ('issues moved to backlog'), and implies mutation. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but provides essential context for a deletion 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and follow with critical behavioral details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness by explaining the irreversible nature and side effects. It could be more complete by mentioning permissions or error cases, but covers the essential context given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'sprintId'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Delete a sprint') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'close_sprint' by emphasizing the irreversible deletion rather than just closing. It specifies the resource being operated on (sprint) with a clear verb.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by stating the consequences ('all open issues in the sprint will be moved to the backlog') and warning about irreversibility. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'close_sprint' for less destructive operations.

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