create_sprint

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful call-time behavioral hints: board_name is a partial match and start/finish are optional ISO 8601 dates. However, it does not disclose side effects such as duplicate creation, board-not-found behavior, or validation failure consequences.

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 efficient: a single purpose statement followed by a clean args list with no redundant prose. All necessary parameter semantics are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Parameters are well covered, and an output schema exists so return format is not needed. However, key contextual gaps remain: no usage guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no error or edge-case behavior. An agent can call it correctly but may not know when to choose it or what to expect on failure.

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 0%, but the description compensates by documenting all five parameters: board_name partial match, sprint_name purpose, start/finish format with examples, and instance optionality. This goes well beyond the bare parameter titles in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new sprint on an agile board'), making the primary action unambiguous. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_sprint, though 'create' contrasts with update and delete actions.

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 such as update_sprint or add_issues_to_sprint, nor any mention of prerequisites like an existing board or permission requirements. The agent must infer usage context from the name and arguments alone.

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