transfer_cycle_work_items

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying the move semantics (source and destination) and the 'incomplete' filtering, which is not present in annotations. It aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose and parameter roles without waste. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifies parameter semantics, earning a perfect score.

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 simple three-parameter move operation, the description is mostly complete, covering the main intent and the roles of two parameters. Missing project_id semantics and return behavior (no output schema) are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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?

The description explains cycle_id as the source and new_cycle_id as the destination, providing meaning beyond the schema. However, the required project_id parameter is not described, and since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more fully—covering all three parameters rather than only two.

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 'Transfer incomplete work items from one cycle to another' with a clear verb and resource, and specifies scope ('incomplete'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_work_items_to_cycle and remove_work_item_from_cycle by implying a move operation rather than an add/remove.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (moving incomplete work items between cycles) and provides context via the source/destination parameter roles. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention exclusions like completed items staying behind, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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