linear_createCycle

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

Without any annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new cycle', revealing nothing about required permissions, side effects, what the return value is, or whether it is a destructive operation. This is insufficient.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a cycle object or confirmation), nor how it fits with related tools like linear_completeCycle. More context is needed.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 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 'Create a new cycle' clearly states the verb and resource. It is straightforward and distinguishes from many sibling tools like linear_updateCycle or linear_addIssueToCycle, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 like linear_completeCycle or linear_addIssueToCycle. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it.

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