jira_add_issues_to_sprint

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or behavior when issues are already in the sprint. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. It lacks information on return values or error handling, but the low complexity and clear action make it adequate, though not rich in context.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for sprintId and issueKeys. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it also does not need to, given the schema's clarity.

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 tool moves one or more issues into a sprint, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions 'Agile API' to distinguish it from standard Jira operations, aligning with its function among siblings.

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 use case (moving issues to a sprint) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like jira_list_sprints or jira_update_issue. This leaves some ambiguity about the preferred context.

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