update_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 'Update' without explaining whether it performs a partial or full update, what happens on error, whether it returns the updated cycle, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized with a short opening sentence and a bullet-like Args list. It is efficient and front-loaded, but the parameter list is essentially a repeat of the schema titles, so it could be more compact without losing value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits crucial behavioral details like partial vs full update and return semantics. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't clarify how the update operates, making it incomplete for reliable 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 lists all six parameters with brief explanations, adding the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifying that IDs are UUIDs. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is the sole documentation for parameters, though the explanations are mostly restatements of the property names.

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 an existing cycle.' which clearly states the verb (update) and resource (cycle), and distinguishes it from create/delete/list/get. However, it lacks any additional context about scope or constraints that would fully differentiate it from other update tools, though the resource name is explicit.

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 like create_cycle or delete_cycle. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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