linear_create_project_milestones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only repeats the obvious creation intent and gives no information about atomicity, partial failures, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if one milestone fails. This is a significant gap for a batch mutation 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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, earning a top score.

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 tool is a simple batch create operation with complete parameter documentation. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns or any batch-specific limitations. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps around expected results.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both projectId and milestones, including nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (project milestones), and the scope (multiple at once). This distinguishes it from the singular 'linear_create_project_milestone' sibling tool by explicitly indicating batch creation.

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 phrase 'multiple project milestones at once' implies the tool is intended for batch creation, providing context for when to use it over the singular sibling. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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