linear_updateIssueTemplate

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds no additional behavioral insights beyond what annotations provide, such as error states or required permissions. It is consistent (no contradiction).

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 two concise sentences with key information front-loaded: the action ('Update an existing issue template') and the usage constraint ('Provide id plus at least one other field'). No wasted words.

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 has 6 parameters including a nested object (templateData) and no schema descriptions for most, the description does not fully convey the semantics of the update operation. It is adequate but leaves gaps, e.g., what templateData does. Output schema exists but does not compensate for the input ambiguity.

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 only 17% (id described). The description only adds that id is required and at least one other field must be provided, but fails to explain the meaning of other parameters like templateData, name, etc. This is insufficient for low schema 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 clearly states 'Update an existing issue template' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like createIssueTemplate (create) and archiveTemplate (delete/archive) by indicating mutation of an existing entity.

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 implicitly says when to use this tool (to update) by stating 'Update an existing issue template' and requiring 'id plus at least one other field'. It does not explicitly contrast with create or archive alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes it clear.

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