move_issue_to_sprint

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether moving an issue removes it from previous sprints, or if it fails for certain sprint states. The description is too brief to convey important side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. Every word 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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description misses details like what happens to the issue's previous sprint position. For a mutation tool operating on two key IDs, more context about the effect is needed.

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% and parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., issueKey example, sprintId hint to use get_sprints). The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the action, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Move an issue to a specific sprint') and the resource ('issue' and 'sprint'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'assign_issue' (user assignment) but has slight inconsistency between 'specific sprint' and 'current sprint'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_issue' or 'transition_issue'. No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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