delete-cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but fails to specify critical details such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related issues, or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permissions, or side effects, and doesn't explain what happens upon success or failure, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('project_id' and 'cycle_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how to obtain these IDs or their format. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a cycle from a project'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like 'delete-intake-issue' or 'delete-module' by specifying what makes a cycle unique or the consequences of deletion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing to list cycles first or warn against using it if issues are attached, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'list-cycles' for selection or 'update-cycle' for modification instead.

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