linear_create_customer_need_from_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'creates', providing no information about side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the attachment. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided), but it is virtually absent.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single tautological sentence does not efficiently convey purpose or context.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the return value, how teamId and title relate to the customer need, and any constraints. It provides none of this, leaving the agent underinformed.

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% description coverage, so each parameter already has a basic explanation (e.g., 'ID of the attachment'). The description does not add any further meaning or usage hints beyond the schema.

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 essentially repeats the tool name ('Creates a new customer need from an attachment') without adding specificity. It does not clarify what a customer need is or how it differs from issues or other resources, and no differentiation from sibling tools like linear_create_issue is provided.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_create_issue. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., attachment must exist in Linear) or 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.