update_cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully explain behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a cycle by ID' and returns the updated object, but does not disclose mutation effects, partial versus full replacement, permission requirements, or error scenarios.

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 clean docstring with a concise one-line purpose, an Args list, and a Returns line. It is generally well-structured, though the extra 'workspace_slug' parameter adds slight noise and inconsistency.

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 description covers all schema parameters and states the return value, but for a mutation with 10 parameters and no annotations, it lacks important context about behavior (e.g., partial vs. full update, auth needs, error conditions) and how it fits into the broader cycle workflow.

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 adds concrete semantics for each schema parameter (e.g., 'UUID of the project', 'Cycle start date (ISO 8601 format)'), which goes beyond the bare types in the schema. However, it includes 'workspace_slug' which is not present in the schema, potentially misleading the agent.

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 'Update a cycle by ID' – a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_cycle, retrieve_cycle, delete_cycle, and complete_cycle.

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 one-line purpose implies usage when updating an existing cycle, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. Guidance is minimal and implied rather than explicit.

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