delete_cycle

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral effects. It only states that a cycle is deleted by ID, but does not mention permanence, cascading removal of associated items, required permissions, or whether deletion is recoverable. This is too little for a destructive 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 compact and uses a structured Args block, but it is excessively skeletal and the Args block includes an extra parameter (`workspace_slug`) not present in the schema, which undermines its structural accuracy. A longer, more informative description would be more appropriate given the destructive nature of the operation.

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?

With only two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description still misses critical context: it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated work items, how the workspace is identified, or what response to expect. The mismatch between the listed args and schema compounds the incompleteness.

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 input schema has zero descriptive coverage for its two properties, and the description merely restates the parameter names with generic type labels ('UUID of the project', 'UUID of the cycle'). It also introduces a `workspace_slug` parameter that is absent from the schema, creating confusion about required inputs.

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 operation ('Delete') and the resource ('a cycle') with an explicit ID-based identification. This distinguishes it from cycle-related tools like update_cycle, complete_cycle, and manage_cycle_archive, which represent different 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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as manage_cycle_archive (which might be a softer removal) or complete_cycle. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or conditions under which deletion should be used.

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