Update sprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Only provided fields are changed' is a genuinely valuable disclosure that prevents an agent from assuming PUT-like full-replacement semantics. However, it does not disclose whether state transitions are restricted (e.g., reopening a closed sprint), error behavior, or permission requirements, which are material for a mutating 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?

A single 15-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the scoped fields, and ends with the critical partial-update behavior. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy.

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 6-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core: what can be updated and the non-destructive partial-update semantics. It omits state-transition constraints and error behavior for invalid combinations, which an agent would need to invoke this correctly against a sprint workflow. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 67%, with name and goal lacking descriptions. The description compensates by enumerating 'name, goal, dates, or state,' which maps to the six parameters and adds meaning for the two undocumented ones. It clarifies the state parameter's domain (active/closed/future) and groups the two date parameters, though it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a sprint'), and enumerates exactly which aspects are modifiable: name, goal, dates, and state. The field list makes it clearly distinct from specialized siblings like close_sprint (state=closed only) and create_sprint, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 partial-update note ('Only provided fields are changed') implies this tool is for surgical modifications rather than full replacements, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over close_sprint, create_sprint, or other sprint siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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