linear_createComment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only notes that threaded replies are supported, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, side effects (e.g., notifications triggered), or the response format. For a creation tool, more transparency is expected.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Add a comment to an issue'). It is free of redundancy and every word adds value. No wasted space.

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 simplicity of the tool (create a comment with two required and one optional parameter) and the schema's completeness, the description covers the essential functionality. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning the return value or confirming the need for a valid issueId and body. Nevertheless, it is largely adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, which already communicates their purpose. The description adds the context of 'threaded replies' that hints at the parentId parameter, but this is also described in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so a score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add a comment') and the resource ('to an issue in Linear'). It also mentions a key feature ('supports threaded replies'), which distinguishes it from a basic comment operation and helps differentiate it from sibling tools like linear_getComments or linear_updateComment.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the action of adding a comment is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or references to related tools (e.g., linear_getComments for reading). The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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