linear_generateOAuthApplicationSetup

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool does not create the application and requires admin review, which aligns with read-only behavior. No contradictions. The description provides supplementary context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences. It front-loads the main action and a critical caveat. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 11 parameters, low schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description lacks detail on how parameters affect the manifest or what the output contains. It covers the high-level flow but not enough to fully understand parameter usage without inspecting the schema.

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 11 parameters with schema description coverage of only 9%. The tool description does not explain any parameter semantics or constraints. For example, the 'name' parameter has a pattern excluding 'Linear' or URLs, but this is only in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema minimally provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate an official Linear OAuth application manifest and a human-confirmed setup URL.' It also explicitly distinguishes from related tools by noting 'This does not create the application,' which differentiates it from linear_createManagedOAuthApplication.

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 generates a setup URL that requires admin action. It implicitly tells when to use (to initiate OAuth setup) and when not to use (to finalize creation). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for direct creation.

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