delete_cycle_issue

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'Remove an issue from a cycle' without stating whether this is destructive/irreversible, whether it affects the issue's existence elsewhere, or what the output looks like. The description does not add meaningful context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 concise, with one action sentence followed by a parameter list. Every element serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 adequately covers the core purpose and parameter semantics, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations, leaving the description only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an Args list that explains each parameter: project_id, cycle_id, and issue_id are all clearly defined as UUID identifiers of their respective entities. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an issue from a cycle.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_cycle (which deletes the entire cycle) and add_cycle_issues (which adds issues to a 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_issue (which deletes the issue entirely) or transfer_cycle_issues (which moves issues between cycles). It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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