delete_cycle_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove an issue from a cycle,' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the issue is deleted entirely or just unlinked, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from additional context for completeness.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke 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 100%, with all three parameters (cycle_id, issue_id, project_id) documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('an issue from a cycle'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_module_issue' or 'delete_cycle', which also involve deletion operations in similar contexts, missing explicit distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for removing a single issue from a cycle while preserving the issue elsewhere, or if there are prerequisites like the issue being in the cycle first. Sibling tools like 'delete_cycle' or 'delete_module_issue' exist without context on their differences.

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