Create a customer record in Linear; only a name is required, with optional fields for size, tier, domains, revenue, owner, status, and external IDs.
Create a customer. Only name is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The customer to create. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the basic write and external-side-effect profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not describe permissions, idempotency, what record is created, rate limits, or any side effect beyond the trivial 'create' verb. With annotations present this is a low-value addition.
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 followed by the only required-parameter note. There is no wasted text, and the information is easy to scan.
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 tool has a rich nested schema for optional customer fields and an open-world write annotation, but the description is minimal. It gives the core action and required field, but does not clarify the Linear context, what happens to omitted optional fields (schema covers defaults), or what is returned. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a creation tool with many optional properties.
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%, and every parameter is documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-related statement ('Only name is required') duplicates the schema's required list. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a customer'), so an agent knows what action is performed. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like stripe_customers_create or notion_pages_create, which also create customers/pages, leaving the target system to be inferred from the tool name alone.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only states a parameter requirement ('Only name is required'), which is not usage guidance. An agent reading this would not know when to prefer this tool over stripe_customers_create or other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.