Create a Linear issue relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the core mutation and some relation types, but it omits important behavior: whether the relation is directional, whether both issues must already exist, what side effects occur, and what the operation returns. This is inadequate for a state-changing 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point because including 'subtask' as a relation type is misleading and does not match the schema-provided enum, so not every piece of information 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?

Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It gives a high-level purpose but lacks parameter direction semantics, valid relation type alignment, and any indication of return values or failure conditions, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the meaning or direction of issueId versus relatedIssueId. It only mentions 'between two issues' and lists relation types, one of which is invalid against the schema. The agent still must infer the parameters from their names.

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) and resource (issue relation) and identifies the operation as one between two issues. It is distinguishable from the list/delete siblings. However, it lists 'subtask' as an example relation type even though the input schema's enum contains 'similar' instead, which adds 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus linear_list_issue_relations or linear_delete_issue_relation knives. The only signal is the verb 'create', which is implied by the tool name and title rather than explained as a usage condition.

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