manage_cycle_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important side effect (auto-setting end_date to today) and states the return value, but it does not describe unarchive behavior in detail, error cases, or idempotency. This is partially transparent but has notable gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured logically into summary, behavioral note, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter toggle tool, the description covers the core behavior and key side effect. The existence of an output schema means return details need not be repeated. It is reasonably complete but could mention edge cases like unarchive on archived cycles or failure conditions.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. The Args section explicitly explains each parameter: project_id as UUID of the project, cycle_id as UUID of the cycle, and archive as a boolean with True/False semantics. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Archive or unarchive a cycle,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling archive tools for other entities (e.g., manage_work_item_archive, manage_cycle_archive being cycle-specific).

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 clear context: Plane requires the cycle end_date to be in the past before archiving, and the tool auto-sets end_date to today if needed when archive=True. This tells the agent when the tool can be used even for active cycles. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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