update_sprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: partial updates ('Only provided fields will be updated') and state-dependent restrictions ('For closed sprints, only name and goal can be updated'). However, it lacks information on permissions, error conditions, or what the response looks like, leaving 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, while the second adds critical behavioral constraints. Every word earns its place, 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential constraints but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover error handling, authentication needs, or return values, which are important for safe usage. The partial update and state restrictions are helpful but insufficient for full 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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying partial updates and state restrictions, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Update') and resource ('sprint information') with specific fields listed (name, dates, goal, state). It distinguishes from siblings like create_sprint or close_sprint by focusing on updates, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them.

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 implied usage guidance through constraints ('Only provided fields will be updated' and restrictions for closed sprints), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue or when not to use it. No sibling tool comparisons are made.

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