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 adds one useful detail — the exact ISO-8601 date format with milliseconds and timezone offset — but omits material behavior for a creation tool: whether the sprint is created in an active or future state, what the response contains, and whether any board must exist. These gaps are significant for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a high-value format clarification. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created sprint's ID), the resulting sprint state, or any preconditions. The parameter schema is complete, but the missing behavioral and response context leaves an agent guessing after invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving a concrete date format example (2026-09-01T09:00:00.000+0000), clarifying the exact ISO-8601 variant expected for startDate and endDate, which is a common failure point.

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 (create), resource (sprint), and scope ('on a board'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_sprint, update_sprint, close_sprint, and list_sprints. It doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternative, but the create verb plus sprint resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., needing a valid existing board). The only usage signal is the verb 'create', which implies this is for making new sprints rather than reading or updating them.

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