linear_createOAuthClientCredentialsToken

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: token is returned once, no refresh token, 30-day validity, and revocation of existing tokens on scope change. This is essential for safe agent usage, especially since annotations provide no behavioral hints.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose and grant type, and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema for return values, the description covers the token creation lifecycle, usage target, validity, and side effects. It is complete for a token creation tool, including important warnings about token revocation.

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 80% (clientId lacks description). The description adds context about the impact of the scopes parameter (scope change revokes tokens), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's definition of enumerated values.

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 specifies the tool issues a scoped Linear app-actor access token via the client_credentials grant, explicitly stating it is for server-to-server pipelines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle OAuth setup, authorization URLs, or application management.

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 clear context: it is for server-to-server pipelines, tokens have no refresh token, are valid for 30 days, and scope changes revoke existing tokens. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative token generation methods or state when not to use it.

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