Create a project milestone in Linear by providing its name and project ID, with optional target date, description, and sort order.
Create a milestone inside a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The milestone 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 mutation profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond 'create' – no auth/permission requirements, no statement about the parent project needing to exist, no idempotency or side-effect context.
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 zero filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 create tool with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the requirement of an existing projectId and any note about returned identifiers, but the schema carries most of the load.
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 (name, projectId, sortOrder, targetDate, description, id). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (create) and resource (milestone) plus its scope (inside a project), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as linear_project_milestones_list or linear_project_create, leaving the agent to infer it is the write-side counterpart.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no signal about when to create a milestone versus listing milestones or creating a project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.