update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates three fields and that state is matched by name, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications, permissions required), whether updates are partial or full replacement, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler. Structure is clear and efficient.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage scenarios. It explains state matching behavior and typical use cases. It is mostly complete, though it could briefly note that the update is immediate or mention any required permissions for completeness.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds only one extra detail: 'State is matched by name against the issue's team workflow,' which provides context beyond the schema's 'Workflow state name, e.g. In Progress'. For other parameters, the description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool updates a Linear issue's state, assignee, and/or priority, using specific verbs like 'starts work' and 'finishes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue (read-only), create_issue (creation), and comment_on_issue (comments).

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 concrete usage scenarios: when a user starts work (state to 'In Progress'), finishes (state to 'Done/In Review'), or reassigns/reprioritizes. It explains state matching by workflow name. However, it does not mention when NOT to use the tool or explicitly list alternatives beyond the context.

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