copy_executions_to_cycle

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

Discloses copying behavior, optional flags to reset statuses/defects, async polling with wait parameter, and input type flexibility. Lacks explicit mention of permissions or side effects, but covers key behaviors well given no 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?

Efficient and well-structured. Front-loaded with purpose, then contrast, parameter specifics, and async behavior. No wasted sentences, clear bullet-point style.

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?

Covers most aspects: purpose, flags, async, parameter usage. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state that executions are IDs, but schema and context imply it. Missing detailed output for non-wait case, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

All 8 parameters are semantically explained: cycle_id, executions, project/version (with id/name note), clear_status_flag, clear_defect_mapping_flag, wait, and timeout. Adds meaning beyond the schema names.

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 it copies executions into a cycle, preserving status and defect links, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `add_tests_to_cycle_from_cycle` by highlighting the difference in preserving prior results.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs. the alternative (`add_tests_to_cycle_from_cycle`) and provides guidance on async behavior (wait flag) and parameter preferences (prefer ids for project/version).

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