update_sprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the allowed values for 'state' ('open' or 'closed') but does not explain mutation semantics, permission requirements, or the effect on existing sprint fields.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is economical but could include more useful detail without becoming bloated, so the conciseness is slightly impaired by under-specification.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is inadequate for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations. It omits update semantics (partial vs full), field defaults, and any prerequisites, making it insufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lacking parameter documentation. It explains only the 'state' parameter's allowed values, while leaving 'title', 'end_date', 'start_date', 'description', 'sprint_id', and 'workspace_id' unaddressed.

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 tool's action ('Update a sprint') and identifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling update tools by naming the specific entity, though it doesn't enumerate all updatable fields, only mentioning 'state'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other update tools, nor are prerequisites or typical workflows mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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