linear_transferIssue

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

The description is minimal and adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already indicate (idempotent hint, read-only hint false, destructive hint false). It does not explain side effects like whether the issue's comments or attachments move, or if team workflows are affected.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that captures the core function. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has a simple purpose with only two parameters, and the output schema exists. The description is minimally adequate, but it lacks context about potential impacts (e.g., does the issue change state? Are notifications sent?). Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters (issueId, teamId) with adequate descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, and since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 clearly states the action: 'Transfer an issue to another team'. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like linear_updateIssue, which could also change team, but the transfer is a more specific action.

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 (e.g., linear_updateIssue). The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as permissions or whether the issue must be in a certain state, nor does it state when not to use it.

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