linear_updateWorkflowState

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

The description only states 'Update', which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not disclose error behavior, return value, or side effects.

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 at one sentence, with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose and a key usage constraint efficiently.

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 5 parameters, low schema coverage, and annotations that are present but not detailed, the description is too sparse. It omits important context about field semantics, expected input formats, return value, and potential side effects, making it incomplete for a fully informed agent invocation.

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 20% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by stating the requirement of 'id plus at least one other field'. However, it does not explain the meanings of optional fields (name, color, position, description), leaving gaps in parameter semantics.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('a workflow state'), and adds a constraint ('Provide id plus at least one other field to change'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'createWorkflowState' and other update tools for different entities.

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 implies when to use (when updating an existing state) but does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or comparisons with related operations like archiving.

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