Create a Linear issue

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and supported fields; it does not disclose side effects, return values, validation behavior, idempotency, or permission requirements, leaving significant ambiguity for a creation tool.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero fluff. The feature enumeration is compact and appropriate for the tool's scope.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits behavior, return value, prerequisites, and does not clarify the parameters that lack schema descriptions, so an agent must infer critical details.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it merely lists field names (assignee, state, project, etc.) without adding meaning. The only semantic note about parentId creating a sub-issue largely duplicates the schema description for parentId.

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 opens with 'Create an issue,' a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools include update/delete/list variants, so an agent can immediately distinguish this as the creation tool. The list of supported fields reinforces scope without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' and the tool name, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus siblings like linear_update_issue or linear_create_issue_relation. No prerequisites, exclusions, or fallback conditions are provided.

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