linear_create_project_with_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies the teamIds format but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. For a creation tool, this is minimal.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a focused note. Every word earns its place, front-loading the core purpose. There is no superfluous text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple required parameters), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain return values (no output schema), constraints like team IDs must exist, or that issues' teamId must match a project teamId. More context would help, but it meets the minimum viable standard.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly noting that teamIds must be an array (not a single value), which can prevent a common mistake. This goes beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new project with associated issues, and includes a helpful note distinguishing teamIds (array) from teamId. This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like linear_create_issue and linear_create_project_milestone.

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?

The description implies the tool is for creating projects along with issues, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like linear_create_issues (which creates issues without a project) or linear_create_project (if it existed). No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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