linear_create_project_with_issues

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It discloses the teamIds array requirement, but this is a parameter format note rather than a behavioral trait. The description does not mention side effects, failure modes, atomicity, or permission requirements, which are critical for a mutating 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 one sentence plus a brief note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity of nested objects and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or the relationship between the project and its issues. The teamIds note is helpful but insufficient for a tool that creates two types of resources in one operation.

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 schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'issues' parameter has a direct description). The description adds value by emphasizing that 'project requires teamIds (array) not teamId (single value),' which helps avoid a common mistake. However, it does not explain the relationship between project.teamIds and issues[].teamId, and the schema already documents teamIds as an array.

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 project with associated issues.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the combination of project + issues distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_create_issue or linear_create_project_milestone. The added note about teamIds further clarifies the scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this should be used when needing to create a project and issues together in one call, nor does it reference sibling tools. The teamIds note is a parameter detail, not a usage guideline.

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