wetrack_update_sprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the allowed status values and the move_to option for routing unfinished tickets when completing a sprint. However, it does not mention side effects beyond move_to, whether partial updates are supported, or any permission requirements, so transparency is only partial.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter list. Every line adds information – no filler, no repetition of schema types, and no unnecessary prose. The formatting makes scanning quick for an agent.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the key semantics well, including formats and special values. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state that only sprint_id is required while all other fields are optional, nor does it clarify whether move_to is expected when status is set to 'COMPLETED'. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not needed.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% parameter descriptions, the description's Args section fully documents every parameter: sprint_id, name, start_date, end_date, goal, status, and move_to. It provides the date format, the allowed status values, and explains move_to options ('BACKLOG' or a target sprint UUID), adding substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Update sprint details, status, or goal.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling sprint operations like create, get, delete, and list by indicating a mutation of an existing sprint. It also mentions status, goal, and move_to, which further scope the operation beyond a generic update.

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 intended use case is implied by the tool name and the verb 'Update' – an agent should call this when modifying an existing sprint. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as wetrack_create_sprint or wetrack_delete_sprint.

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