linear_convertIssueToSubtask

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

While annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no further behavioral context. It fails to explain what exactly happens (e.g., whether the original issue is preserved, how parent is reassigned, or side effects).

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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It could slightly benefit from more detail without becoming verbose, but it is efficiently structured.

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 the mutation nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the process or outcome, such as whether the issue becomes a subtask and what happens to its original hierarchy. The agent would need additional documentation to fully understand the behavior.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Convert an issue to a subtask' uses a specific verb ('convert') and identifies both the resource ('issue') and the intended transformation ('to a subtask'). This clearly distinguishes it from other issue-related tools like create_issue or update_issue.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transfer_issue or update_issue. No explicit when/not or context for usage is given, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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