create_cycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals date format requirements, parameter input flexibility (keys/names vs ids), and return format. It lacks details on auth, rate limits, or potential side effects, but for a create operation, these are acceptable gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses minimal sentences to convey essential details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (date format, parameter types, return structure) but omits details for optional parameters. It is sufficient for a create tool but could be more thorough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for project, version (prefer ids), and date format, but does not explain build, environment, description, start_date, end_date, sprint_id, or cloned_cycle_id. Partial coverage warrants a mid score.

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 'Create a new test cycle' with a specific verb and resource. It adds concrete details like date format and parameter options, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguished from sibling tools like add_tests_to_cycle_from_cycle or update_cycle.

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 provides guidance on when to use the explicit version and cautions against using -1 unless intentionally targeting the Unscheduled version. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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