archive_sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the 'finished sprint' precondition but says nothing about reversibility, whether the sprint disappears from boards, or permission requirements. Adequate given annotations, but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a two-parameter tool. The parenthetical is slightly cryptic but costs almost nothing.

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 low-complexity two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and precondition. It omits any post-archive behavior and leaves one required parameter undocumented, so it is only minimally 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 50%: 'version' is documented as 'Current sprint version' while 'sprintId' has no description. The parenthetical '(version = sprint version)' only restates what the schema already says and does not compensate for the undocumented sprintId.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Archive a sprint') plus a precondition ('finished'), which distinguishes it from generic state changes. It does not explicitly name siblings like delete_sprint or update_sprint, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Finished sprint' implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as delete_sprint or start_sprint. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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