linear_issue_update

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description usefully adds that unmentioned fields are left untouched, that closing is done via state transitions rather than a dedicated operation, and that label_ids is destructive-to-existing-labels while added/removed are incremental. It stops short of describing permissions, error behavior, or reversibility.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core partial-update contract front-loaded before the close and label mechanics.

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 and fully documented parameters, the description covers the update contract, closing behavior, and the highest-risk parameter interaction (label replacement). It omits any mention of required identifiers or permission/error expectations, which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description highlights state_id, label_ids, added_label_ids, and removed_label_ids, but the schema descriptions for those parameters already state the same replacement-versus-incremental semantics, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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 ('Update an issue') and immediately qualifies the semantics with 'Only the fields provided are changed', which is a meaningful partial-update contract. It does not name the sibling linear_issue_create or linear_search_issues to differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives two concrete conditional instructions: how to close an issue (set state_id to a completed/canceled state, since there is no close operation) and when to prefer added_label_ids/removed_label_ids versus label_ids. No explicit routing to alternative tools, but the when-to-do-X guidance is clear.

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