move_issue_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool moves an issue to a sprint, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether the move is reversible, error conditions, or what happens if the sprint is closed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core function, and the second adds contextual usage. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it efficient and 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for a tool that modifies data.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (issueKey and sprintId), including an example for issueKey and a reference to 'get_sprints' for sprintId. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('move') and resource ('issue to a specific sprint'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'transition_issue' or 'update_issue' which might also affect issue status, though 'move_issue_to_sprint' is more specific about sprint assignment.

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 some context by mentioning 'This is the main function to add tickets to the current sprint,' which implies when to use it (for sprint assignment). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'transition_issue' for other status changes, leaving usage guidance somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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