Assign sprint

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive writes. The description adds behavioral context: it replaces any existing sprint label and allows clearing with null. This goes beyond annotations but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or exact response format.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key special case. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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 tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and the null case. However, it lacks details on response, error handling, and atomicity for multiple tickets. It is minimally adequate.

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 only 33% (sprint has a description matching null usage). The tool description does not clarify what 'project' refers to (ID? name?) or the format of 'tickets' (array of ticket IDs). The implied meaning from context is insufficient given the gap.

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 action ('Move one or more tickets into a sprint'), specifies the mechanism (sets sprint:<name> label, replacing existing), and includes the special case of null to send tickets back to backlog. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like create_sprint or update_task.

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 provides clear context for when to use (assigning tickets to a sprint) and the null case for backlog. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., set_status for single ticket updates).

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