linear_updateWorkflowState

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the partial-update requirement — that an id alone is insufficient and at least one mutable field must be supplied. It does not explain side effects or validation behavior, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden.

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 one direct front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core action and the key usage requirement.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and only 20% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits field semantics, constraints, how to discover the workflow state id, and behavior when fields are omitted. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the invocation guidance remains incomplete.

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 only 20%, with only 'id' documented. The description says to provide id plus another field but does not explain the meaning, format, or constraints of 'name', 'color', 'position', or 'description'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Update a workflow state.' This is unambiguous and distinct from a create/get operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like linear_createWorkflowState or linear_getWorkflowStates, relying mostly on the tool name and verb.

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 gives a useful operational rule: 'Provide id plus at least one other field to change.' This tells the agent what is required to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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