create_sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the 'sprints enabled' precondition, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about required permissions, what happens to an existing active sprint, or failure modes for a create operation with four required fields.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the constraint tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description is silent on what is returned or how the new sprint is identified. For a create tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations, this is adequate but thin — the required-date semantics and the result of a successful creation are left entirely to the schema and inference.

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 75% with boardId, startDate and endDate documented in the schema; only 'name' is undocumented but self-evident. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (create a sprint on a board), which is immediately distinguishable from the get_/update_/start_/archive_/delete_sprint siblings by name and action. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It provides one genuine precondition — the board must have sprints enabled — which tells the agent when this call will fail. However, it gives no guidance on how this relates to alternatives such as update_sprint or start_sprint, and no prerequisite about sprint board types beyond the single parenthetical.

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