transfer-issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Transfer issues' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if the transfer is reversible, what happens to the source cycle (e.g., are issues removed or copied), or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility), output format, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. Given the complexity of transferring issues between cycles, more context is needed for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between cycles or project context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('transfer issues') and resources involved ('from one cycle to another'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add-issues-to-cycle' or 'remove-issue-from-cycle', which also involve cycle-issue relationships, so it doesn't achieve full distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, what happens to issues in the source cycle after transfer, or how it differs from tools like 'add-issues-to-cycle' or 'remove-issue-from-cycle' in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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