create_cycle

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only 'Returns: Created Cycle object' and parameter formats. It does not disclose side effects, validation rules, error scenarios, or permission requirements. Minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations imply.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the action. It is concise despite listing many parameters, but the inclusion of 'workspace_slug' adds noise. Overall efficient.

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?

While the description lists parameters and return type, it lacks context on when to create a cycle, constraints (e.g., unique names), and the inconsistent workspace_slug parameter undermines completeness. With an output schema, return values are covered, but behavioral context is missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides explanations for all 9 parameters, including format hints (e.g., ISO 8601 for dates, UUID for identifiers). However, it lists 'workspace_slug' which is not in the input schema, causing a discrepancy. The descriptions add value but are not fully consistent.

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 'Create a new cycle' with a list of parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like retrieve_cycle, update_cycle, etc., but does not explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like create_project or create_state. The purpose is clear and specific enough for most agents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace slug) or context when create vs. manage_cycle_work_items should be used. The description lacks any usage direction.

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