Jira Move To Sprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation) and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: no mention of permission requirements, whether the move is atomic across multiple issue_keys, what happens to already-assigned issues, or error behavior on partial failures.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding, which is efficient and front-loaded. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a mutation tool, so it reads more as minimal than as well-calibrated brevity.

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 mutating bulk operation with no output schema and no explicit guidance on sprint state eligibility or failure semantics, the definition leaves meaningful gaps. The annotations cover the read/write nature but not the operational constraints an agent needs before invoking it.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents sprint_id and issue_keys (including the example format). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Move') and resource ('issues into a sprint'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from related siblings such as jira_get_sprint or jira_backlog, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_backlog, nor any prerequisites (e.g. sprint must be active/future, issue must be on the same board). Usage context is entirely absent.

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