workflow_start_feature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly states it creates resources but omits details like potential failures (if issue or branch already exists), required permissions, or whether the branch is based on the default branch. It discloses the combined behavior but not all side effects.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence summary, a two-line combined action overview, and a bullet list of args. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 covers the main purpose, all input parameters, and a high-level return value ('Dictionary with created issue and branch details'). Missing specifics: what exactly is in the return dict (issue ID, branch name, etc.) and whether the branch is created from the default branch. With no output schema, a bit more detail would be helpful.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Args' section adds critical meaning. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., title for both issue and branch, project as Linear project/team key). Minor omission: no format hints for repo or project keys (e.g., full name or slug).

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 explicitly states it 'Start a new feature workflow: create Linear issue and GitHub branch', with a clear verb and resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like linear_create_issue and github_create_branch by being a convenience tool that combines both actions.

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 explains it is a convenience tool combining three steps (Linear issue creation and GitHub branch creation), which implies when to use it (when both are needed). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., using the individual tools separately if only one action is required).

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