delete_cycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a cycle' without explaining whether the operation is permanent, cascades to associated issues, requires specific permissions, or has other side effects. This is a significant gap 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 extremely brief, with a single sentence and a two-item args list. There is no fluff, but it also under-delivers on useful context. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though a note about permanence would be valuable without hurting conciseness.

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 no annotations, no schema descriptions, and a destructive operation, the description leaves critical gaps about what happens to the cycle's issues, whether the action is reversible, and any preconditions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value details, but the behavioral context is still insufficient for safe invocation.

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 minimal semantics by identifying both parameters as UUID identifiers of the project and cycle, which is slightly more informative than the schema's generic type/title. However, it does not explain the relationship between project_id and cycle_id or the need for both. Given the 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is adequate but not thorough.

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 tool deletes a cycle, using a specific verb+resource formulation. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_cycle_issue) by specifying the resource type. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 use this tool vs alternatives like update_cycle or delete_cycle_issue. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional context.

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