create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action from the name, providing no details on authentication, side effects, idempotency, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient but not notably exceptional; it simply states the action without adding context that would require more structure.

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 description lacks any mention of return values or post-conditions, and no output schema is present to fill that gap. While the parameter schema is complete, a create tool would benefit from stating what it returns (e.g., created issue object) or any prerequisites beyond the required schema fields.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptive comments, so the description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new Linear issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_ticket, search_issues, and add_comment, which are all read or comment operations.

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 usage—if you want to create a Linear issue, use this tool—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks explicit guidance like 'use for new issues only' or 'prefer this over search_issues for creation.'

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