Move issues between cycles by specifying source and target cycle IDs to reorganize project work.
Transfer issues from one cycle to another
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cycle_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the source cycle | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the cycle | |
| new_cycle_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the target cycle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Transfer' implies a mutation that moves issues between cycles, but it doesn't specify whether this is destructive (e.g., removes from source), requires permissions, handles errors, or affects issue states. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling) and return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'uuid identifier of the source cycle'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a source-target relationship, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 ('transfer') and resource ('issues from one cycle to another'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_cycle_issues' or 'list_cycle_issues', which could involve similar resources but different operations.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'add_cycle_issues' (which might add issues to a cycle) and 'list_cycle_issues' (which lists them), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing this transfer operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.