linear_updateRoadmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as what gets modified, idempotency implications, or any side effects. It contributes nothing beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a simple update operation, though it lacks any structural elaboration beyond the one-line statement.

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 large set of sibling tools, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain when this tool is intended (e.g., modifying roadmap properties like name or color) or how it relates to other roadmap operations (create, archive, get). The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the decision to call this tool relies on the name and schema, not the description.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters (id, name, color, ownerId, sortOrder, description). Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description adds no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing roadmap' clearly states the action (update) and resource (roadmap), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create and archive siblings. It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not enumerate the updatable 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is only for modifying existing roadmaps (not creating), nor does it point to any related tools like linear_createRoadmap or linear_archiveRoadmap. The choice relies entirely on the tool name and schema.

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