delete_cycle

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

The description explains the asynchronous operation, return of a job token, and the two modes of waiting. It details the polling behavior and references get_job_progress for manual polling. Given no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers the behavioral traits beyond the delete action, though it does not mention error handling or side effects.

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, focused paragraph that front-loads the main action and async behavior. It is informative without being verbose, though it could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing.

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 deletion tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description provides good context: async behavior, job token details, wait modes, and reference to a related tool. It lacks explicit return value format or error scenarios, but covers the essential usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining three of four parameters: cycle_id (implicit), is_folder_cycle_delete (when to use), and wait (synchronous vs. asynchronous). Timeout is mentioned with a default but not explicitly described; however, its role in polling is inferable from context.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delete a test cycle by id'. It specifies the asynchronous nature and distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like delete_execution or delete_folder by mentioning the folder cycle delete flag. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on when to set is_folder_cycle_delete and explains the wait parameter behavior for synchronous vs. asynchronous usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for deleting folders) or mention prerequisites like required permissions, which would enhance decision-making.

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