Create sprint

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

Annotations show idempotentHint=true, consistent with 'create or update' semantics. The description adds useful behavioral context: the registry is stored in project config and the label-based ticket assignment mechanism. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the action, second explains labeling, third ensures compatibility. No wasted words.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers creation/update behavior, persistence, and interaction with the ticket system. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 83% (5 of 6 parameters described). The description mentions 'optional start/end dates and a one-line goal' but adds minimal value beyond the schema, which already documents constraints like name format and goal being one-line.

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 ('Create (or update) a named sprint on a board') and the specific resource (sprint with optional dates/goal). It distinguishes from sibling tools like assign_sprint by mentioning the label mechanism and that tickets join via sprint:<name> label.

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 explains that the sprint registry is persisted in project config and references assign_sprint for ticket assignment. It also notes compatibility with label-only sprints from the board UI, providing context for when to use this tool versus others.

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