Create a status update for a Linear initiative to report health, progress, and changes.
Post a status update on an initiative.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The status update to post. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and 'Post' is consistent with a write operation. However, the description adds nothing about side effects, permissions, whether followers are notified, or whether prior updates are affected — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with no destructiveHint.
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 filler. Appropriately sized, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely informative.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description does not say what the call returns, what the health field changes, or how the update relates to existing initiative state. The rich schema covers inputs, but behavioral context is missing.
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 100%, so the schema already documents initiativeId, body (markdown), health enum values, and isDiffHidden. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 3.
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+resource: posting a status update on an initiative. That is clear and distinct from list/get siblings such as linear_project_updates_list and linear_initiative_get, though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the write path versus the read-oriented linear_project_updates_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.