linear_team_membership_create

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state in an external system. The description adds nothing beyond that: no idempotency behavior, no handling of the optional owner flag, and no note on duplicate-membership errors.

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 short sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than lean. Brevity here costs information an agent needs for a mutation call.

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 mutation tool with only a readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotation pair and no output schema, the description should disclose permissions, duplicate handling, and the meaning of the owner flag. None of that is present.

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%, with teamId, userId, id, owner, and sortOrder all documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about the optional owner or sortOrder fields, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (add) and resource (member to a team), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not differentiate from any sibling or note scope constraints, but no linear siblings exist to confuse it with.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of required permissions, whether the target user must already exist, or what happens if the membership already exists.

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