linear_update_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when only some fields are provided (partial updates). The priority scale explanation (1=urgent, 4=low) is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's function, and the parameter list provides essential context. No redundant or unnecessary information is included.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter meanings well but lacks behavioral context (auth, errors, partial updates). The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain for a tool that modifies data.

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?

The description provides meaningful context for all 5 parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains 'id' is for identification, clarifies that title/description/status accept new values, and crucially defines the priority scale (1=urgent, 4=low). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain null handling for optional parameters.

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 resource 'existing Linear issue', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like linear_create_issue (create vs update) and linear_get_user_issues (read vs update). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from linear_add_comment (which adds comments rather than modifying issue fields).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing issue ID), when to choose update over create, or how it differs from linear_add_comment for issue modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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