linear_generateOAuthAuthorizationUrl

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds critical context: scopes are merely requested, not persisted; and actor/scope compatibility rules. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences: clear purpose first, then behavioral details. No fluff; every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema exists (so return values are documented) and annotations provide safety profile, the description adequately covers scope behavior and actor rules. However, it omits usage of state and codeChallenge parameters, which are important for OAuth security.

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 coverage is low (29%), but the description adds meaning by explaining scopes array constraints and actor enum impact. However, other parameters (codeChallenge, promptConsent, state) are not described, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 starts with 'Generate a Linear OAuth authorization URL,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from its siblings (e.g., linear_createOAuthClientCredentialsToken) by focusing on URL generation and explaining scope behavior.

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 context on actor and scope constraints, which helps with correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., linear_generateOAuthApplicationSetup for application setup). No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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