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 disclosure burden. It only states the basic action of creating a comment, without mentioning potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, or whether the comment appears immediately. This is a mutation tool with no additional behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with a fully descriptive schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose: creating a comment on a Linear issue. However, the lack of annotations and behavioral details (e.g., what happens if the issue doesn't exist) leaves a small gap, but it is not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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' described in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 names the resource ('a new comment on an existing issue in Linear'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like addJiraComment or createLinearIssue by including 'Linear' and specifying 'comment' rather than 'issue'.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for commenting on a Linear issue, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., addJiraComment for Jira comments). Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but no 'when not to use' or alternative references are given.

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