linear_updateCycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error handling. For example, it does not indicate if updating dates can affect related issues or if changes are immediately persisted.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and key requirement. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to separate purpose from constraint.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated cycle object, success status). It also omits edge cases like providing only id (which schema allows but description warns against), validation, or concurrency behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for reliable invocation.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond noting that at least one optional field must be provided alongside the required id, which is a helpful constraint but doesn't elaborate on parameter interdependencies or formatting.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an existing cycle'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like linear_createCycle or linear_completeCycle. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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_createCycle, linear_completeCycle, or other update tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or whether this is the preferred method for modifying cycle attributes.

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