update_cycle

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

The description discloses the fields that can be updated and specifies that timestamps are ISO 8601, adding transparency beyond the openWorldHint annotation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, validation, or permissions, leaving moderate gaps.

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 focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant information.

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 output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple with one required parameter, the description captures the core behavior. However, it lacks details about validation, error states, or side effects, which is notable given the openWorldHint annotation.

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 listing parameter names and providing the ISO 8601 format hint for timestamps. It does not detail other constraints or defaults, but the schema already provides types and required status.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'cycle', and lists the specific fields that can be modified (name, description, timestamps). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cycle or archive_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 implies usage for updating a cycle's fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, but the sibling context helps infer the use case.

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