linear_updateTeam

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description matches with 'Update', but it adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., required permissions, immediate effect, return value details).

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 short (3 words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is concise but under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 complexity (10 parameters) and many sibling update tools, the description is too minimal. It does not help the agent choose this over similar tools like linear_updateProject or explain operational 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?

With only 10% schema description coverage (only 'id' described), the description fails to explain the other 9 parameters. It does not list or describe fields like 'key', 'name', 'color', etc., leaving the agent without guidance.

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 verb 'Update' clearly indicates a modification action, and 'team settings' specifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_archiveTeam or linear_addUserToTeam, but lacks specificity about which settings can be updated.

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, prerequisites, or restrictions. For instance, there is no mention that updating an archived team might require unarchiving first.

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