set_issue_project

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

The description indicates a mutation ('Add'), but provides no details on side effects (e.g., replacing existing project, error conditions, or permissions). Annotations only include 'openWorldHint', which does not address behavioral traits.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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?

Simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, but the description omits behavioral details like whether the tool replaces or adds to project membership, which is important for a project management context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: issue_id accepts UUID or identifier like ABS-1, and project_id is a UUID. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles.

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 'Add an issue to a Linear project,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_issue_from_project' but could be more explicit about whether it replaces an existing project association.

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. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the issue must not already be in a project, or when to use 'remove_issue_from_project' first.

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