update_sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the core safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, only stating the function itself without additional details like permission requirements or side effects. Given annotations are present, a score of 3 is appropriate — the description neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the behavioral picture.

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 concise but slightly verbose: it includes an args list that efficiently explains each parameter in one line, but the repetition of 'empty = keep' and 'None = keep' across multiple parameters adds a little redundancy. It is front‑loaded with the core purpose and the Args are structured clearly. Not overlong, but not as tight as it could be.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 7 parameters and 2 required ones, and the schema provides no descriptions. The description covers every parameter's semantics including edge cases. An output schema is confirmed to exist, so return values need not be explained. There is no missing information an agent would need to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is annotated with its role, and the special semantics like 'empty = keep' and 'None = keep' are explicitly stated. Partial match behavior for board_name and sprint_name is also disclosed. This fully compensates for the empty 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 a specific resource ('existing sprint on an agile board'), clearly differentiating from the sibling tool 'create_sprint'. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose and scope.

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 clearly indicates it targets existing sprints ('Update an existing sprint'), implying it is not for creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'create_sprint' or 'add_issues_to_sprint', nor does it state when to prefer this tool over them. The context is clear but no exclusions are listed.

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