Linear MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an issue' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, confirmation steps, side effects (e.g., related data cleanup), or error handling. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 at just three words ('Delete an issue'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for a tool that performs deletions.

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, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Issue identifier (e.g., ENG-123)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.

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 'Delete an issue' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (issue). It's specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'linear_delete_issues' (plural), which appears to be a bulk deletion tool, so it misses the opportunity to clarify this distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when deletion is appropriate, or how it differs from 'linear_delete_issues' for bulk operations. Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema.

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