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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the WRITE/mutating framing largely restates structured data. It adds the required-input prerequisite and names the underlying GraphQL mutation, but says nothing about failure modes, validation behavior, or whether the created issue is returned.

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-loaded with the mutation warning and the two required inputs, which is the right ordering. The trailing 'GraphQL: mutation issueCreate' is low-value for an agent selecting a tool but does not bloat the text materially.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what a successful call yields (issue ID, URL), and it omits that. Required inputs, optional fields, and mutation semantics are covered, but the return contract gap leaves it only adequate for a write tool.

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 every parameter including the priority legend and the teamId source. The description's parameter details are essentially duplicative, adding no syntax or format meaning 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 and resource ('creates a new issue in Linear') and flags the operation class up front. The sibling set (get/list/search/add_comment) contains no other create tool, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 the prerequisite dependency explicitly: teamId must come from linear_list_teams, and title is required. It does not describe when-not-to-use or alternative flows (e.g., creating sub-issues or bulk creation), but for a single-purpose create tool the context is clear.

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