linear_setIssuePriority

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool is destructive (updates are mutations). The schema clarifies priority mapping, but behavior like return values or error conditions is omitted.

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, earning its place. It could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, but it is not wasteful. The structure is front-loaded and clear.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any mention of the return value, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for an AI agent. More context would improve 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 the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It adds no value beyond what the schema already provides for issueId and priority (with enum). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Set the priority of an issue' clearly identifies the action and resource (priority of an issue). It distinguishes from broader update tools like updateIssue by specializing in priority changes, though additional context would help.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like linear_updateIssue, which can also change priority among other fields. The description lacks any context for preferred usage or exclusions.

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