save_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool can create or update, the requirement for team_ids, date format, and priority range. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting fields), error behavior for non-existent id, or authentication needs. Moderate transparency.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No redundant or vague statements. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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?

Given 13 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core logic and key constraints but does not explain all parameters. Output schema is present, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is sufficient for experienced users but may leave new users wondering about other parameters. Acceptable but not fully complete.

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 has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for key parameters: id (determines create/update), team_ids (required for create), date format for start_date and target_date, and priority scale. But many parameters (name, color, icon, content, lead_id, state, etc.) are left unexplained. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description clearly states it creates or updates a Linear project, and explains the distinction between create (omit id, pass team_ids) and update (pass id). This provides a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_project or list_projects.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use create vs update, and mentions Linear's requirement for team_ids when creating. However, does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., use get_project for reading). This is a minor gap.

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