linear_create_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning prerequisites, side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple create operation with a comprehensive schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details about return values, authentication requirements (especially for OAuth-specific fields), and any confirmation behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this could leave an agent uncertain about the post-conditions.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the mention of 'reply' is already captured by the schema's 'parentCommentId' description.

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 tool's function: 'Create a new comment on an issue or reply to an existing comment.' This specifies a verb (create) and a resource (comments on issues), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_create_issue or linear_get_issue_comments.

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 for when to use the tool—when you need to add a comment or reply. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is straightforward and distinct from sibling tools like linear_create_issue or linear_search_issues.

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