jira_sprint_delete

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 transparently discloses that the operation is irreversible, that the tool refuses to make an API call without confirm:true, and that it returns YAML {status: ok}. This covers the most important behavioral traits, though it does not mention potential side effects on associated issues or permission requirements.

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 three short sentences, each contributing essential information: the action, the safety guardrail, and the return format. No redundant words or filler; it is front-loaded with the primary purpose and concise throughout.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context: what it does, how to authorize it, and what it returns. The only minor gap is not detailing the effect on issues in the deleted sprint, but this is not essential for basic invocation. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including clear descriptions for sprint_id and confirm. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's role by explaining the refusal behavior, but it does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already contains. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Delete a JIRA sprint (by `sprint_id`)', which is a specific verb+resource statement that unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_sprint_create, jira_sprint_update, and jira_sprint_list by focusing solely on deletion.

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 clearly states the confirmation requirement and irreversible nature, which is critical guidance for when and how to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context around the destructive operation is strong and sufficient for most use cases.

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