linear_setIssuePriority

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the write nature is disclosed. The description adds no extra context beyond 'Set', such as whether existing priority is overwritten or validation behavior. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It communicates the essential purpose without any filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the issue must exist, but that's implied. For a setter, this is sufficient.

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 schema fully documents both parameters, including the priority enum with meanings. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is fine because coverage is 100%. Baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set the priority of an issue.' This clearly identifies the action and target, and is distinct from sibling tools like linear_updateIssue which covers multiple fields. No ambiguity.

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 only states what it does, offering no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., linear_updateIssue) or any exclusions. With dozens of issue-related tools, an agent would benefit from a note that this only changes priority, but it's absent.

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