linear_addAttachment

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., whether adding an attachment triggers notifications), or what happens to existing attachments. The description carries the full burden but provides none of these details.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. For a tool with 8 parameters, the description is too terse and does not provide enough information for correct invocation. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., must the issue exist?), or the nature of the attachment. The agent cannot safely or correctly use this tool based solely on the description.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names. The description does not explain any of the parameters (e.g., what 'metadata' expects, what 'groupBySource' does). This is a critical gap.

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 'Add an attachment to an issue' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (attachment to an issue). While it is not a tautology, it lacks specificity about what constitutes an attachment (e.g., file, link) and does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the noun 'attachment'.

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 guidelines are provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar 'add' tools (e.g., linear_addIssueLabel), but the description offers no context or comparison to help the agent choose appropriately.

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