add_issue_to_cycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the add action and parameter guidance, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or behavior when inputs are invalid. This is comparable to the mid-tier example where mutation tools need more behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence in Portuguese with an inline example. It is front-loaded, wastes no words, and every part adds useful information about purpose or usage.

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?

For a simple tool, the description covers the main purpose and cycle identification, and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. However, it omits guidance about the required 'identifier' parameter and any behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for cycle_id and cycle_name (either/or relationship, example format), but does not explain the required 'identifier' parameter. Thus it provides partial compensation for parameter understanding.

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: 'Adiciona uma issue a um cycle' (Adds an issue to a cycle). It uses a specific verb and identifies both resources (issue and cycle), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_issue_from_cycle.

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 clear context for use: to add an issue to a cycle, and specifically instructs to provide cycle_id or cycle_name with an example format. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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