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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it discloses three things an agent could not otherwise know: this is a partial/patch update, state and assignee changes trigger notifications, and such changes are refused during an agent's own turn. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, and the response shape, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause carries information. The field list is a single comma-spliced run-on that is harder to scan than a separated list would be, which costs a point despite there being no filler.

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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers field formats, patch semantics, side effects, and the refusal path. It does not say what the tool returns or how a failed/refused call surfaces, leaving a small gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: state is a workflow state name scoped to its team with examples, assignee accepts a name/email in its team, "me", or "none" to unassign, priority accepts the named levels or 0-4, and issue is the key format ("ENG-123"). These are effectively enumeration values the schema lacks entirely.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Change a Linear issue through the user's Linear connection") and immediately enumerates the mutable fields, which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_linear_issue, linear_comment, and linear_issues. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

States the update is partial ("Only what you give changes") and gives an explicit refusal condition with the required alternative: from an agent's own turn inside Caddie, state/assignee changes are refused, so "ask the user." That is genuine when-not guidance. It stops short of naming sibling tools for reading or bulk issue operations, so it is not a full routing statement.

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