plane-cycle-add-issues

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Add issues to a cycle' without revealing if it's idempotent, if duplicates are allowed, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it lacks structure and fails to convey important details. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema.

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?

Despite 3 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error handling, or success criteria, leaving significant gaps for proper usage.

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 100%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'Cycle UUID', 'Issue UUIDs to add'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add issues' to a resource 'cycle', and the name 'plane-cycle-add-issues' aligns perfectly. It is differentiated from sibling tools like 'plane-cycle-remove-issue' and 'plane-cycle-create'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring the cycle exists, or contrast with 'plane-cycle-remove-issue' or 'plane-module-add-issues'.

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