Add a label to a Linear issue using its issue ID and label ID, helping organize and filter tasks by category.
Add a label to an issue in Linear
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes | ID or identifier of the issue to add the label to (e.g., ABC-123) | |
| labelId | Yes | ID of the label to add to the issue |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | No | ||
| labelId | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (idempotentHint=true). It does not specify what happens if the label already exists, or any side effects.
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?
A single sentence of 8 words, very concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but could include more context without being verbose.
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?
For a simple two-parameter operation with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on label existence checks or duplicate handling. It is minimally 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already clear.
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 a label to an issue in Linear' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'linear_removeIssueLabel' which performs the opposite action.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.