jira_sprint_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (YAML `{status: ok}`) and mentions mirroring a CLI command, which adds context. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., state transitions, irreversibility), authorization needs, or error handling, which would be expected 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 extremely concise—two sentences covering purpose, parameters, return value, and a reference. No redundant information or filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimal. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but misses important context such as prerequisites (e.g., sprint must exist), potential errors, or guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. For a simple update tool, it is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description lists the updatable fields (name, state, dates, goal) and gives example state values, but this largely repeats information already in the schema. It adds no deeper semantic meaning (e.g., date format, state transition constraints).

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 'Update' and the resource 'sprint', and lists the specific fields (name, state, dates, goal) that can be updated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_sprint_create (create new) or jira_sprint_add (add issues to sprint).

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 modifying existing sprints by listing updatable attributes. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., sprint must exist), the clear purpose and context from the name make it reasonably clear. A more explicit usage hint would improve this.

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