manage_cycle_archive

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the automatic end_date setting behavior and that the operation returns True on success. It does not mention potential failure modes or side effects like unarchive reversing end_date changes.

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 concise (6 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, followed by preconditions, args, and return. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers core behavior, parameters, and return. Minor gaps: unarchive behavior is not elaborated (e.g., does it restore end_date?), and no differentiation from complete_cycle. Still adequate for a simple tool.

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 parameter explanations (project_id UUID, cycle_id UUID, archive boolean meaning) that add meaning beyond the bare schema, though not all edge cases are covered.

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 'Archive or unarchive a cycle', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cycles, create_cycle, etc., by focusing on archive state management.

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 explains a precondition (end_date must be past before archiving) and auto-behavior (sets end_date to today if archive=True). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling complete_cycle tool or specify when not to use this tool.

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