linear_escalate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary side effects (adding a watcher, posting a comment with specified content) but omits other potential behavioral details like status changes, notification side effects, 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, tightly written sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and action. It avoids redundancy and gets to the point immediately.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief to cover important context such as return values, error conditions, side effects beyond the comment, or why this tool should be preferred over sibling tools. It reads like a minimal action summary rather than a complete tool guide.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with only context_comment described in the schema. The description adds meaning for context_comment (mentioning what was promised, tried, and why surfaced) and loosely clarifies manager_email, but ticket_id and email format remain under-specified.

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 a specific action: 'Adds a manager as a watcher' on a ticket and adds a context-rich comment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_update_status or linear_create_ticket.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_nudge or linear_update_status. The description explains the action but not the appropriate escalation context or exclusions.

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