jira_sprint_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states the action and return format, omitting error conditions, idempotency, permissions, or whether issues are appended or replaced. This is minimal 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 sentences and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for return behavior.

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 the presence of sibling tools like jira_sprint_update and jira_sprint_issues, the description partially covers what to expect, but lacks details such as whether issues can be added only to active sprints or the behavior with multiple issues. Without annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond repeating 'by issue key'. 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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'issues to a JIRA sprint by issue key', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_sprint_create (create sprint) and jira_sprint_issues (list issues).

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 mentions the success return format and mirrors a CLI command, but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_edit or jira_sprint_update. Implicit guidance is present but insufficient.

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