create_issue

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

Annotations include openWorldHint: true, indicating potential side effects. The description only states 'create' but doesn't detail what happens (e.g., immediate persistence, visibility, error conditions). No behavioral traits beyond creation are disclosed.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description is simple but lacks information about required permissions, error scenarios, or behavior when optional fields are omitted. Adequate for a basic creation tool but not complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains team_id accepts UUID or key, and priority values. However, state, title, and description parameters lack explanation. Partially helpful but not comprehensive.

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 'Create a new Linear issue', identifying the verb (create) and resource (issue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_issue, update_issue, and delete_issue.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use update_issue instead). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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