delete_cycle

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or permission requirements, offering no value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the core action efficiently, though it sacrifices informative detail for brevity.

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?

The description lacks essential context for a delete operation: no mention of whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, what the return response is, or why project_id is needed. Given the lack of an output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete.

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%, and the description merely says 'by ID' without explaining the role of project_id or cycle_id, or their formats. The tool requires two parameters, but the description does not help an agent understand how to fill them correctly.

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?

Description states 'Delete a cycle by ID' which clearly identifies the action (delete) and resource (cycle), distinguishing it from sibling tools like retrieve_cycle and update_cycle. However, it mentions 'by ID' without clarifying which of the two required parameters (project_id, cycle_id) serves as the identifier.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of consequences. The description provides no context about when deletion is appropriate or what conditions must be met.

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