linear_updateDocument

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms it is an update operation (mutation). No additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide; no contradiction found.

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 sentence of 12 words, directly stating the purpose and a key requirement. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 16 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal but combined with the schema it is complete. However, it could explicitly state that the update is partial (only provided fields change) to be fully self-contained. Still, it is mostly adequate.

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% with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds minimal guidance ('Provide id plus at least one other field to change'). This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not compensate further.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'existing Linear document'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_createDocument or linear_archiveDocument by specifying the action and requiring an existing document. The addition of 'Provide id plus at least one other field to change' adds specificity.

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 gives a clear condition for use: must provide id and at least one other field. It implies when not to use (if no fields to change), but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is adequate but not exemplary.

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