archive_cycle

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds behavioral context by mandating user confirmation before setting confirm=true, which is a safeguard detail. However, it does not disclose the full scope of archiving (e.g., impact on associated issues or reversibility).

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 consists of two short sentences that efficiently convey the core action and a critical usage instruction. Every word serves a purpose, and the important guidance is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and explicit annotations, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks details on what archiving entails (e.g., visibility changes, impact on integrated tools) and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects beyond the confirmation requirement.

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 description coverage, the description carries the burden. It adds meaning for the confirm parameter by linking it to user confirmation, but provides no additional semantics for cycle_id, leaving the schema to define it. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Archive') and the resource ('a cycle'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like archive_issue or archive_project by targeting cycles specifically.

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 a specific instruction for the confirm parameter ('only after explicit user confirmation') but fails to give broader context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_cycle or when not to use it. No comparison to siblings or scenarios is offered.

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