createLinearIssue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. For a creation tool, this lack of context leaves the agent unsure about what happens after the call.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately concise, though the phrase 'with the specified details' is somewhat filler and adds little value. Overall, it is efficient and not verbose.

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 that the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the function returns upon success, whether errors are expected, or how the parameters interact. This is insufficient context for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 a 100% coverage of parameters, each with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the generic 'specified details', which is already evident from the schema. It neither enhances nor detracts from schema information.

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 ('Creates a new issue') and the target resource ('in Linear'), which distinguishes it from tools for other platforms. However, it does not elaborate on distinguishing characteristics from other Linear tools like updateLinearIssue or createLinearComment, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies its use for creating Linear issues, but does not mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools such as updateLinearIssue for modifications. No prerequisites or contextual cues are provided.

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