complete_cycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the side effect (sets end_date to today) and provides helpful domain context about how completion works in Plane. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or idempotency, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear opening sentence, a relevant explanatory paragraph, and a tight Args/Returns listing. No wasted words, and every sentence provides necessary information.

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 tool with two simple parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the action, domain context, parameters, and return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensates by listing both parameters with type hints and brief purpose (e.g., 'UUID of the project' and 'UUID of the cycle to complete'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more explicit about the relationship between the two IDs.

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: to complete/close a cycle by setting its end date to today. It also explains the domain-specific mechanism (no explicit 'complete' action; a cycle is complete when end_date is in the past), which distinguishes it from generic update_cycle operations.

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 implies when to use the tool (to close/complete a cycle) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like update_cycle. It provides useful context but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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