create_issue

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 conveys 'full customization' and includes a useful tip about assigneeId='me', but it omits details about side effects, required prerequisites like teamId, or the creation process being immediate. There is a gap in behavioral context.

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 concise: one clear sentence plus three illustrative examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant text. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description gives a solid overview but could be more complete given no annotations and no output schema. It does not mention prerequisites like using get_teams for teamId (though the schema does) or what the response looks like. However, the examples and 'full customization' cover much of the context.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal extra value. The examples map to parameters ('high-priority' to priority, 'assign to me' to assigneeId), but this does not go beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a new issue in Linear' with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates it from sibling tools like update_issue and get_issue. The examples further clarify the intended use cases.

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 provides clear context through examples (bug report, feature request, task) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_issue or state when not to use it. It leaves room for inference rather than giving explicit exclusions.

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