linear_transferIssue

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the bare action, such as whether the transfer affects issue history, other fields, or requires the target team to exist. It does not contradict annotations, but with the burden shifted to the description, it fails to disclose any side effects or prerequisites.

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, clear sentence with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary detail. This is exemplary conciseness for a straightforward tool.

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 moderate complexity of transferring an issue and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual details about side effects or preconditions. An agent can call the tool, but might be unaware of implications like changes to the issue's project or cycle. The description does not explicitly mention any constraints or consequences, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 input schema provides clear, complete descriptions for both parameters (teamId and issueId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics—it only restates the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter information and the description does not enhance it.

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 'Transfer an issue to another team' clearly states the action (transfer) and the resource (issue) plus the destination (another team). It is specific and easily distinguishable from siblings like linear_updateIssue or linear_assignIssue, which deal with different modifications. The verb and noun combination makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not mention conditions (e.g., requiring specific permissions, whether the issue must be open, or differences from assignIssue or updateIssue). An agent must infer usage solely from the name and general context, offering insufficient decision support.

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