remove_issue_from_cycle

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool removes an issue from a cycle, implying a mutation, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the cycle or issue is not found. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by a specific parameter instruction. It is economical with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it skips important details, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. It earns a high score for structure.

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 tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and three parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the interaction between the required 'identifier' and the optional cycle_id/cycle_name, nor does it describe the expected output or error behavior. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 does explain that cycle_id and cycle_name are alternative identifiers for the cycle, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it completely omits the required 'identifier' parameter, leaving its role unclear. The description provides only partial compensation for the parameter coverage gap.

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 primary action with a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('issue from cycle'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_issue_to_cycle by naming the inverse operation. The instruction to provide either cycle_id or cycle_name adds useful scoping, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a parameter-level instruction ('Informe cycle_id ou cycle_name') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The omission of the required 'identifier' parameter in the instruction also muddies usage, making the guidance incomplete.

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