update_sprint

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-destructive profile. The description adds a genuinely useful hint about optimistic concurrency ('version = sprint version, If-Match lock'), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it is cryptic and does not explain what happens on a version conflict.

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 tight sentence with the primary actions front-loaded and no wasted words. It borders on too terse, packing the concurrency hint into an unexplained parenthetical.

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, the description covers the updatable fields and the version-lock requirement, but omits failure behavior on version mismatch, permission requirements, and partial-update semantics when only some fields are supplied.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description does useful work mapping 'version' to the sprint version and the If-Match lock, and implying name/dates/status map to their parameters. However sprintId is left implicit and date formats are only in the schema, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('update') and resource (sprint), and enumerates the mutable fields: rename, dates, status. It clearly distinguishes itself from read/create/delete sprint siblings, though it does not explicitly route to start_sprint or archive_sprint for those dedicated lifecycle changes.

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 given. The presence of start_sprint and archive_sprint siblings makes it non-obvious whether a status change should go through this tool or those; the description does nothing to resolve that ambiguity.

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