create_cycle

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds operational context beyond annotations, such as the requirement for a user UUID in owned_by and the expected date format. It stops short of describing return values or error behavior, but it provides meaningful additional transparency.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states purpose, the second delivers crucial parameter guidance. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers only two fields. It omits the return value (likely the new cycle ID), potential failure modes, and the meaning of optional fields, leaving significant gaps for the 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining owned_by as a user UUID and dates as YYYY-MM-DD. However, it leaves 7 other parameters unaddressed; some are self-explanatory by name (project_id, name), but optional fields like timezone, external_id, and external_source lack semantics.

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 opens with 'Create a new cycle (sprint) in a project', which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_cycles, update_cycle, and delete_cycle. The parenthetical 'sprint' adds helpful synonym context.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on sourcing the required owned_by field from get_workspace_members or get_me, and specifies the YYYY-MM-DD date format. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the create-vs-modify distinction is clear.

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