linear_create_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful security-related behavior: 'Keys stay server-side in the Linear service; this tool never exposes them to the model.' However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, potential duplicate tickets, or side effects, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and purpose, the second adds a crucial security detail. Both sentences earn their place with no redundancy or filler.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains why the tool exists (preventing commitment loss) and the security model. However, it omits information about the return value or any failure modes, which would be useful but not essential 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?

The description does not discuss any of the five parameters. Schema description coverage is only 40%, leaving labels, title, and assignee_email without meaningful descriptions in either the schema or the tool description. The description fails to compensate for this gap, providing no value 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 clearly states the verb 'Creates a Linear ticket' and the specific resource (Linear ticket), with the context of 'newly extracted commitment' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_update_status. It also conveys the purpose 'so it's never lost', making the tool's intended role immediately clear.

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 implies when to use it: for newly extracted commitments that might otherwise be missed ('even commitments nobody manually ticketed'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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