create_cycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation ('create') without mentioning permissions, idempotency, required conditions, or what happens on failure. This is a mutation tool with no safety-relevant context.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args list is efficiently formatted, with each line contributing useful parameter info. No fluff 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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description provides the essential parameter meanings but omits usage context (when to use vs alternatives), lifecycle considerations, and expected output (though output schema exists). It is adequate but has notable gaps.

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%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that project_id is a UUID, start/end dates use YYYY-MM-DD format, and identifies optional parameters. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions and provides useful constraints.

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 in a project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cycles, get_cycle, update_cycle, and delete_cycle by indicating this is the creation operation.

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 usage by saying 'in a project' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_cycle for modifications). There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, but the CRUD context makes it somewhat clear.

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