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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the identity the comment is posted under (the user's Linear connection), the Markdown format, and the key side effect that subscribers are notified. It stops short of covering permissions, editability/deletability, or failure behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter detail, then the behavioral constraint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, identity, format, ID format, and the notification side effect. Only error/permission behavior is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the `issue` parameter precisely ('its key ("ENG-123")') and hints at `body` being Markdown, but says nothing about body length limits, mentions, or whether the issue key must be from a specific team.

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 and resource ('Comment on a Linear issue') plus who the action is attributed to ('as the user') and the body format ('Markdown'). The action is intrinsically distinct from create_linear_issue and linear_update_issue, but the description never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'only what the user would say there' — i.e. this is a public, attributable action — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule and no routing to alternatives such as linear_update_issue for editing the issue itself.

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