linear_convertIssueToSubtask

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as side effects on issue relationships or project membership, but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations cover the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with zero redundancy, directly stating the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool with only two required parameters, clear schema descriptions, and an output schema, the minimal description is arguably sufficient for an agent to understand the core operation. However, it omits any mention of potential side effects (e.g., changes to the issue's hierarchy, position in project) or prerequisites, which could be important for a mutation. Thus, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions like 'ID or identifier of the issue to convert (e.g., ABC-123)'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so with high schema coverage the baseline of 3 is justified.

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 the specific verb 'convert' and the resource 'issue to a subtask', which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like linear_transferIssue or linear_duplicateIssue. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or provide additional differentiation, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions for use, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without any contextual direction, leaving the agent without explicit routing information.

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