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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive write with open-world access. The description adds important context beyond that: writes must be enabled for the run, only workspace issues work, and refusals cannot be worked around.

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?

Front-loads the action and identity, then gives usage guidance and the refusal constraint in compact form. There is little wasted wording.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, workspace scope, and failure behavior. It could mention output or comment visibility expectations, but the essential call information is present.

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 the schema already documents issue identifiers, markdown body, and the analytics context parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or formatting details beyond the schema.

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 ('Post a comment') and resource ('Linear issue') plus the identity scope ('as the connected user'). It is clearly distinct from siblings such as linear_get_comments and linear_set_issue_state.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: report findings, a PR link, or why something was not done. It also explains refusal behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to comment.

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