Update an existing project cycle's details—dates, name, description, and more—by supplying project ID, cycle ID, and the fields to modify.
Update an existing cycle
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cycle_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the cycle to update | |
| cycle_data | Yes | The fields to update on the cycle | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the 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 full burden. 'Update an existing cycle' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps.
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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks supporting details that would enhance utility.
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 (mutation tool with 3 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, the update behavior, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data, this minimal description leaves too much undefined for safe and effective use.
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 parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter details. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 'Update an existing cycle' states the verb ('update') and resource ('cycle'), but is vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'update_module' beyond the resource name. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity about the update 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing cycle ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new cycles), or how it differs from related tools like 'create_cycle' or 'delete_cycle'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.