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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the mutation target (commentCreate) and reinforces the write nature, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the comment is editable/deletable afterward.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the warning emoji and WRITE label, then the required inputs and GraphQL target. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, fully schema-documented write tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens on an invalid issueId).

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the crucial 'id not ENG-123' caveat inside the issueId schema. The description only restates the parameter names and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('posts a comment on an issue') and even names the GraphQL mutation (commentCreate), which distinguishes it sharply from read-only siblings like linear_get_issue and linear_search_issues.

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 the WRITE label and the required inputs, but the description never states when to comment versus when to edit an issue or reply elsewhere, and it names no alternative sibling. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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