linear_removeIssueFromCycle

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

Annotations already declare `idempotentHint: true`, `destructiveHint: false`, and `readOnlyHint: false`. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'remove', so it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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 very concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the action. No fluff, but could include a short note about idempotency or non-destructive nature.

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 tool with an output schema and high schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, it lacks usage context and does not explain that it only removes the association without deleting the issue or cycle.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic value to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Remove' and the resource 'issue from a cycle'. It is specific and directly distinguishes this tool from siblings like `addIssueToCycle`, `getCycleIssues`, and other remove tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., issue must be in cycle), when not to use, or any context about the lifecycle of cycles.

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