jira_sprint_create

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

The description discloses that the tool returns YAML and is destructive (creates something). However, it does not detail permissions, side effects, or idempotency. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one for purpose, one for return format and consistency with CLI. No redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (5 params, no output schema) and the presence of sibling sprint tools, the description covers the essential purpose and return. It could mention that jira_sprint_add is for adding issues, but is sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 'Create a new sprint on a JIRA agile board' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the return format (YAML) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_sprint_update and jira_sprint_add.

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 implies the tool is for creating sprints but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., jira_sprint_add for adding issues). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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