update_cycle

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses the HTTP method (PUT), body-only id, partial update behavior, date format, version resolution dependency, and return format. Missing are permissions, side effects, or lock details, but core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose, then three concise points about mechanics, and a final line on return value. Zero wasted words, front-loaded, and uses formatting (bold, code) effectively.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, update behavior, date format, version logic, and return format. It lacks explanation of field meanings (e.g., build, environment), potential side effects, or prerequisites. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds critical semantics: cycle_id sent in body, omit fields to leave unchanged, date format, version as name/id with project requirement. However, not every parameter is individually explained (e.g., build, environment, folder_id rely on general 'omit' rule).

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Update an existing test cycle's fields.' This immediately distinguishes it from create_cycle, delete_cycle, and other cycle-related siblings.

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?

While the description provides detailed parameter usage (e.g., date format, version resolution), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_execution or create_cycle. No comparison or 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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