linear_updateInitiative

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds nothing beyond the one-line purpose—no note about partial updates, what happens to unspecified fields, required permissions, or rate limits. With annotations present, some credit is given, but the description is semantically empty of behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema and fully documented parameters, so the structured data carries much of the burden. The description is adequate for a moderate-complexity update tool but is thin—it doesn't clarify whether it patches only provided fields or replaces the whole initiative, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 100%, so all 9 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing initiative'). The purpose is clear and actionable, and among siblings like linear_createInitiative, linear_archiveInitiative, and linear_deleteInitiative, the verb distinguishes it. However, it doesn't explicitly name siblings to differentiate from, which keeps it from a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives (create, archive, delete, unarchive) or on when an update is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts that should route an agent here.

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