linear_updateTeam

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention side effects, the scope of updates, or any operational details, so it adds no value over the annotations.

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 short sentence, which is concise but in this case it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It omits essential information, so it is not a model of conciseness; it is incomplete.

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 10 parameters, an output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, parameter semantics, or usage constraints, leaving an agent with insufficient information to call the 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 10%, and the tool description provides no parameter meanings. With 9 undocumented parameters and a single generic sentence, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. The only described parameter (id) is covered by the schema, but the rest remain unexplained.

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 'Update team settings' states the action (update) and resource (team), so it is minimally clear about the tool's general purpose. However, it does not specify which team settings or differentiate from other update tools like linear_updateProject or linear_updateCycle, making it vague but not a tautology.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description provides no information to help an agent decide when to call this tool over others.

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