add_issues_to_sprint

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds that board_name and sprint_name are partial matches and issue_ids is comma-separated, which is useful. However, it does not explain whether issues are appended or replace the existing sprint contents, or how ambiguous partial matches are resolved. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-organized, with a one-line purpose followed by a clean parameter list. The phrase 'using YouTrack commands' adds little practical value and could be seen as filler, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 four primitive parameters, clear arg descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers the essential calling semantics. It omits possible error conditions and append-versus-replace behavior, but these are not critical for making a correct first call given the annotations and schema.

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?

All four parameters are explicitly described in the Args block, which is essential given the 0% schema description coverage. It explains partial matching for board_name and sprint_name, gives a concrete comma-separated example for issue_ids, and marks instance as optional. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Add issues to a sprint.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling operations like create_sprint, update_sprint, or bulk_update_execute. The only slightly vague phrase is 'using YouTrack commands,' but it does not undermine the clarity of the core action.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention preconditions such as the board and sprint needing to exist. The implied use case is obvious from the name, but there are no explicit selection criteria, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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