linear_addIssueToCycle

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the action. It omits critical details like whether the issue can already be in another cycle (replacement vs. error), required permissions, or side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 a single, complete sentence with no filler. Every word is necessary and directly addresses the tool's purpose. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks essential behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error states). It is not complete enough for an agent to use reliably without further assumptions.

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% with concise parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation well.

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 'Add an issue to a cycle' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'add' tools like linear_addIssueLabel or linear_addIssueToProject, missing an opportunity to clarify uniqueness.

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 (e.g., linear_removeIssueFromCycle for removal). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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