Post a project status update to share progress and flag health as onTrack, atRisk, or offTrack. Writes a project note; use project_update to change project details.
Post a status update on a project, optionally reporting health as 'onTrack', 'atRisk' or 'offTrack'. This writes a note; to change the project itself, use project_update.
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the write is a status note rather than a mutation of the project record, which clarifies side-effect scope. It does not cover whether posting triggers notifications or how the health value is displayed, but the core behavioral framing is present.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The primary action and its scope come first, and the disambiguation hint follows. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-argument nested create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and routing adequately. It could mention that an id is auto-generated when omitted or what isDiffHidden controls, but those are documented in the schema and are not essential to correct invocation.
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 all fields (id, body, health, projectId, isDiffHidden) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the health enum values but adds no format, constraint, or default guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 ('Post a status update on a project') and immediately scopes what is being created ('a note'), which separates it from tools that mutate the project itself. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like linear_project_create or linear_project_update without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative ('to change the project itself, use `project_update`') and the condition that selects it. It gives clear positive and negative routing, though it does not enumerate other update-related siblings (milestones, issues) an agent might confuse it with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.