linear_completeCycle

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

Beyond stating the action, the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not explain what happens when a cycle is completed (e.g., status change, effects on issues), nor any required permissions or side effects. Annotations provide idempotentHint but no operational context.

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 sentence of four words, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it omits important details that could be included without sacrificing conciseness, slightly reducing its 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?

Given the tool is a mutation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is overly minimal. It lacks context about the outcome, prerequisites, and how it fits among cycle-related siblings. The agent would need additional knowledge to use it correctly.

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%, so the schema already describes the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantics about the id (e.g., format, scope) beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Mark a cycle as complete' clearly states the action (mark as complete) and the resource (cycle). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like linear_createCycle or linear_updateCycle, which have different purposes.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., cycle must be active), and no indication of when completion is appropriate. The agent has no context to decide between this and updateCycle.

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