wetrack_create_sprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core side effect—creating a sprint—and notes that creation is manual, with an initial status default of 'PLANNED.' However, it does not disclose permissions, validation rules, duplicate handling, or whether the created sprint is returned in the response; the output schema partially relieves that last gap.

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 compact: one purpose sentence followed by a tidy Args block. It contains no filler, and the examples and formats justify the parameter lines, though the parameter names still partially duplicate the schema properties.

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?

The description fully covers parameter semantics and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. But it leaves gaps around when manual creation is appropriate, whether the project must already exist, uniqueness expectations for sprint names, and date validation. This is adequate but not complete for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained with meaning, format examples like 'YYYY-MM-DD' and 'Sprint 3', default values, and the allowed status enum. This adds substantial semantic value over the bare schema titles and types.

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 opens with a specific imperative: 'Create a sprint manually for a project.' This identifies the verb, the resource, and the scope, and the word 'manually' adds an important behavioral qualifier. It also distinguishes the tool from sprint-reading and sprint-editing siblings such as wetrack_list_sprints, wetrack_get_sprint, wetrack_update_sprint, and wetrack_delete_sprint.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to related tools such as wetrack_update_sprint for existing sprints or wetrack_get_sprint for retrieval. The only usage signal is the verb 'create,' so the agent must infer context on its own.

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