Connector: Linear act

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The action list (delete, archive) reinforces destructiveness, but the description says nothing about reversibility, required permissions, or the consequences of destructive actions, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the action list follows. Efficient, though the parenthetical action list is the least essential part.

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 catch-all multi-action connector with a nested params object and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the available actions but gives no per-action guidance, no indication of how params maps to each action, and no return-value expectations.

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 the schema already documents action_type, resource_id, and params. The description only duplicates the action_type value list and adds no meaning about how params should be shaped per action, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Execute a write action') and resource ('Linear'), and enumerates the supported actions, which cleanly separates it from connector_linear_search and connector_linear_fetch. It does not differentiate itself from the other connector_*_act siblings, but for a Linear context the write-vs-read distinction 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 word 'write' implies usage versus the read-only search/fetch tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to, prerequisite, or pointer to an alternative. The agent must infer that mutations route here and reads route elsewhere.

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