update_issue

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

Annotations include openWorldHint, but the description does not explain that additional fields may be accepted. No details on side effects, authentication, or mutation semantics beyond the obvious 'update.' The description adds little beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the identifier hint is directly useful. Very concise.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and a known output schema, the description omits key details: whether updates are partial or full, what the response contains, and how openWorldHint affects parameter handling. The tool's behavior is inadequately specified for a mutation operation.

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 description coverage, the description only clarifies the issue_id parameter format ('UUID or identifier such as ART-5'). No explanation is provided for the other five parameters (state, title, priority, assignee_id, description), leaving the agent to rely on defaults and parameter names.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing Linear issue,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from creating, archiving, or other issue actions. The mention of UUID/identifier format adds specificity.

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 implies usage for updating existing issues but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like archive_issue or delete_issue. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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