start_sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds the state change and clarifies the version parameter, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or idempotency. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for the modest additional context.

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 with a parenthetical, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 50% parameter coverage, the description is minimal. It omits prerequisites, error conditions, and what the operation returns or affects beyond the state change. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 has a description, sprintId does not. The description clarifies that version means 'sprint version', adding meaning for one parameter. It does not compensate for the missing sprintId description, though the name is fairly self-explanatory.

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 'Start' and resource 'sprint', and adds the state transition 'moves to in_progress'. This distinguishes it from update_sprint or get_sprint, but does not explicitly name alternatives. An agent can infer the action, though sibling differentiation is left 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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., sprint must be in a planned state) or when to choose this over update_sprint. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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