linear_createIssueRelation

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it creates relations, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether existing relations are overwritten.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning its place efficiently.

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 simple parameter set, full schema coverage, and output schema presence, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention whether relations can be created multiple times or if duplicates are handled, but overall it provides adequate context for a straightforward mutation.

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% and each parameter already has a description. The description only paraphrases the 'type' enum values without adding new meaning. It does not clarify formats for issue IDs beyond what the schema provides, so it adds marginal value.

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 action ('Create relations between issues') and lists example relation types ('blocks, is blocked by, etc.'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'linear_deleteIssueRelation' which deletes relations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, idempotency considerations, or comparison to similar tools like creating a relation from other objects.

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