create_iteration

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming mutation. The description adds behavioral context by noting dry_run=true by default, which prevents accidental creation. The schema further clarifies that dry_run should be set to false only after user confirmation, enhancing transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, 24 words—with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and essential parameters, making it efficient for parsing.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the core action, required params, default behavior, and date format. It could mention the group_id parameter's role, but that is detailed in the schema. Overall, it is complete for a creation tool with a safety mechanism.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by summarizing key constraints: required dates, date format, and dry_run default. This helps the agent prioritize essential parameters.

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 tool creates a new iteration (sprint) in a group, specifying the required dates and dry_run default. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_iteration by indicating it's a creation 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 explicitly mentions that start_date and due_date are required with YYYY-MM-DD format, and dry_run=true by default, guiding safe use. It also implies via schema that group_id can be ID or URL path and suggests using list_groups if needed. However, it does not explicitly compare to related tools like update_iteration or list_iterations.

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