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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default team (first team) and the notable assignee-refusal behavior inside Caddie agent turns, which is valuable context. However, it omits permissions, reversibility/idempotency, rate limits, and what the response contains.

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?

One front-loaded paragraph leads with purpose before parameter details, with no filler sentences. The dense parentheticals and long sentence slightly reduce readability but the content is efficiently sized.

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 no annotations and no output schema, it covers the core creation action and key parameter semantics. It does not state that title is required or what the tool returns (e.g., issue ID or URL), leaving the agent to infer result handling.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does for three of five parameters. It explains team format and defaulting, assignee name/email plus refusal context, and maps human priority labels to Linear's 0–4 scale. The title and description parameters remain undocumented in both places, though title is self-evident and body content is straightforward.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('issue in the user's Linear'), plus integration context ('Caddie's Linear connection'). The creation action distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like linear_update_issue and linear_query.

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?

Implies use when creating a Linear issue but never states when to prefer linear_update_issue or linear_query, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The assignee caveat is a conditional behavior, not alternative routing guidance.

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