create_cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that it creates a cycle and returns the created object, but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or validation behavior. It fails to provide sufficient context beyond the obvious creation action.

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 with an opening statement, an Args list, and a Returns section. It is concise and front-loaded. The inclusion of an undocumented 'workspace_slug' parameter slightly detracts from accuracy, but the overall organization is clear.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers all schema parameters (plus one extra) and states the return type. However, it lacks usage context, prerequisites, and contains a parameter/schema discrepancy, making it only moderately complete for a create operation.

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 description provides human-readable explanations for all parameters listed in the schema, which is helpful given 0% schema_description_coverage. However, it introduces 'workspace_slug' which is not present in the input schema, creating a mismatch. The descriptions are basic definitions and do not clarify required vs optional or formats beyond what the schema already implies.

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 "Create a new cycle," which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_cycle, delete_cycle, and list_cycles.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., project existence, permissions), and no exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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