linear_updateIssueTemplate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update an existing issue template' without any detail on side effects, permissions, error conditions, or idempotency. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core requirement. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the requirement from the action.

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, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits information about return values, parameter dependencies, and the purpose of templateData. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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% (only 'id' is described). The description adds that 'at least one other field' must be provided but does not explain the meaning or constraints of the other parameters (name, description, teamId, templateData, sortOrder). This forces the agent to infer from parameter names, risking incorrect usage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing issue template', specifying both the action (update) and the resource (issue template). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_createIssueTemplate and linear_getIssueTemplateById.

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 advises to 'Provide id plus at least one other field to change', giving a minimal usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar operations.

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