update_cycle

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, which aligns with 'update'. However, the description adds no context about important behavioral traits such as whether this is a partial update (patch) or full replacement, or what happens to omitted fields. This ambiguity is not covered by 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 zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential 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 tool with 10 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It omits details about update semantics, return value, and error conditions, leaving the agent to make assumptions.

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 provides no parameter explanations. Parameter names like 'start_date' and 'external_source' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify semantics like null behavior (clearing fields vs. ignoring them) or the purpose of required project_id alongside cycle_id.

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 resource ('cycle'), and 'by ID' indicates targeted modification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cycle, delete_cycle, and list_cycles.

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 (when you need to update a cycle), but does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It relies on the tool's name and basic semantics.

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