createLinearComment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that a comment is created, without disclosing prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist), permissions, response details, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence that immediately states the verb and target with no filler or redundant information. 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 two-parameter create operation with no output schema and no nested objects, the description provides the core action and context adequately. It lacks behavioral specifics, but the operation is straightforward enough that the description is mostly complete.

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 100%, with both 'body' and 'issueId' explicitly described (including markdown support for body). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('new comment on an existing issue in Linear'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling comment tools for other platforms (e.g., createNotionComment, addJiraComment) by naming Linear as the target system.

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 'on an existing issue in Linear' clearly indicates the intended use case: commenting on an existing Linear issue. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over comment tools for other platforms.

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