linear_updateIssueTemplate

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond restating the action. It doesn't mention permissions, response shape, or side effects. Given annotations cover the core safety profile, the description adds minimal behavioral insight, earning a 2.

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 states the action, the resource, and the required parameter constraint efficiently. No redundant information.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, low schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown). The description does not elaborate on the meaning or behavior of the optional fields, nor does it reference the output. With complex nested objects and sparse schema descriptions, the context is incomplete. Annotations cover safety but not parameter semantics or expected outcomes. A 2 reflects the significant gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 17% (only 'id' is described). The description states 'Provide id plus at least one other field' but does not explain the meaning of name, teamId, sortOrder, description, or templateData. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain any parameter semantics beyond the requirement to include at least two fields.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'issue template', and explicitly requires 'id plus at least one other field to change'. This distinguishes it from create/get/archive template tools and from updateIssue. It's specific and unambiguous.

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 usage: it tells the agent to provide id and at least one other field, indicating the tool is for modifying existing templates. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like createIssueTemplate or archiveTemplate, but the clear purpose and the requirement of an existing id provide sufficient context. No exclusions, but the scenario is clear enough for a 4.

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