plan_linear_draft_review_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that this only BUILDS a payload rather than posting to Linear (reinforcing the 'plan_' prefix), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not, however, explain the live-export vs saved-artifact resolution behavior or any failure modes.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient in form, though that efficiency borders on under-specification for a 15-parameter tool. No structural problems.

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 15-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no required-parameter guidance, and no explanation of how the two input-source modes map to specific fields, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the input side is badly under-documented.

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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides titles only and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Critical parameters like artifact_path, artifact_relative_path, artifact_profile, cas, dtxsid, inchikey, and the hitcall/stressor_limit tuning knobs are entirely unexplained. This is a substantial gap the description should have compensated for.

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 artifact: 'Build a connector-ready Linear document payload.' The dual source (live draft review export vs saved artifact) is named, which is informative. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling export/save tools like export_draft_review_artifact or save_draft_review_artifact, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 mentions two input modes but gives no guidance on when to choose one over the other, nor when this planning step should be used versus the many adjacent export/artifact siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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