Create a Linear document with only a title required, and optionally attach it to a project, initiative, issue, cycle, or team.
Create a document. Only title is required — a document can hang off a project, initiative, issue, cycle or team, or off nothing at all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The document to create. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/open-world nature is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that only `title` is mandatory and that parentage is optional, but says nothing about permissions, defaults applied, or side effects like subscriber notification.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the key constraint about required vs. optional linkage. No filler, though the second sentence mixes a requirement statement with an enumeration of parent types.
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 single-object create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential call-shaping information (only title required, optional attachment targets). It is close to complete, with only auth/permission expectations left unstated.
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 every field. The description reinforces the required/optional split for `title` and the parent-link options, which is mild added value but not new syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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+resource ('Create a document') that is clearly distinct from sibling creation tools like linear_issue_create or linear_project_create. It does not explicitly name or contrast siblings, but the resource noun 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 useful usage context — only `title` is required and the document may attach to a project, initiative, issue, cycle, team, or nothing — which tells the agent the tool is flexible about parentage. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or alternative tooling for creating content elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.