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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing two real preconditions: Linear writes must be enabled for the run, and only issues in the connected workspace are reachable. It does not describe failure behavior when a state name is invalid or the underlying state is unchanged, which keeps it from 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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: operation, discovery procedure, and write prerequisites. The action and its payload are front-loaded before the caveats.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, auth gating, and the discovery path, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on what the state-listing response looks like versus the move result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds genuine meaning by explaining that `state` values are team-scoped and non-guessable, which the schema's 'Target workflow state name' text does not convey. The optional/omit-to-list behavior is largely restated from the schema rather than extended.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a Linear issue to a workflow state') and constrains scope to by-name state transitions, which cleanly separates it from linear_get_issue, linear_search_issues and linear_add_comment. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives an explicit two-step invocation pattern ('Call it WITHOUT `state` first to see the states that issue's team actually allows') plus the reason state names cannot be guessed. This is actionable when-to guidance an agent would otherwise get wrong by hallucinating a state name.

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