Update a Linear issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that parentId moves/reparents the issue, but it does not disclose other side effects like state transitions triggering workflows, whether updates are partial or full, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and enumerates the key fields without filler. Every phrase adds useful information and no redundant wording is present.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, error behavior, whether labelIds replaces or appends, or whether changes are atomic, which an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds high-level meaning by grouping fields (e.g., state, assignee, labels, cycle) and clarifying parentId as reparenting, but it does not provide formats, allowed values, or dependency relationships beyond what the schema already gives.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a Linear issue') and lists the exact mutable fields, including subtle ones like parentId for reparenting. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like linear_create_issue, linear_get_issue, linear_archive_issue, and linear_delete_issue.

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 this is the tool for modifying an existing issue, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not clarify when to prefer create_issue, delete_issue, or archive_issue, and it doesn't state prerequisites such as the issue needing to exist.

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