create_cycle

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

The description adds behavioral context about timestamp and team ID formats. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The openWorldHint annotation suggests unknown side effects, but the description does not address this.

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, with two sentences and an example, no extraneous information. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential usage but misses completeness on aspects like return values, duplicate handling, and constraints. The openWorldHint annotation indicates more context may be needed.

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 compensates by explaining the format for starts_at, ends_at, and team_id. However, name and description parameters are not explained. This adds partial meaning but leaves gaps.

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 tool creates a Linear cycle for a team, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_cycle and update_cycle by focusing on creation.

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 format hints for timestamps and team_id, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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