linear_createSavedView

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens on creation, any side effects, permission requirements, or whether name collisions are handled. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description contributes nothing extra, making this a minimal score.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately clear. For its brevity, it is perfectly concise and structured.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, including nested objects and an output schema, yet the description is only a one-liner. It does not explain what a saved view is, how to structure filters, or which parameters are essential beyond the required 'name'. Annotations provide no additional context. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so all 11 parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already documents each field. While some schema descriptions are vague (e.g., 'Raw filters object'), the coverage is complete, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not enhance the schema's meaning.

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 'Create a Linear saved view' with a specific verb and resource, and the API reference 'createCustomView' adds specificity. It differentiates from siblings like linear_updateSavedView, linear_deleteSavedView, and linear_getSavedViews by the action 'create'. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from its close relatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions that would make this the correct choice. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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