create_lifecycle

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, so the description isn't required to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context: the lifecycle can be cloned from an existing one and it defines statuses and transitions for tickets. No contradiction with 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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose and provide meaningful follow-up routing without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 creation tool with only three parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the purpose, the clone option, and the next recommended step. It doesn't describe the return value, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful nuance for the 'clone' parameter ('clone an existing one as a starting point') and reinforces that 'name' is required, but it doesn't substantially extend the schema.

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 primary action: 'Create a new lifecycle' with a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to update_lifecycle for subsequent customization.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool ('Create a new lifecycle') and provides an explicit alternative for follow-up work: 'After creating, use update_lifecycle to customize statuses and transitions.' It does not mention when not to use it, but the resource scope is clear.

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