linear_add_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add a comment') but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'markdown supported' for the body parameter is useful context, but overall behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point style parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose makes it immediately scannable.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and good parameter coverage in the description, the description is moderately complete. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication needs or side effects. The purpose and parameters are clear, but behavioral context is light.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: 'issue_id' (Issue ID to comment on), 'body' (Comment text with markdown support), 'create_as_user' (Custom username), and 'display_icon_url' (Custom avatar URL). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., URL validation).

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 verb 'Add' and resource 'comment to an issue', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'linear_create_issue' or 'linear_update_issue' by focusing specifically on commenting rather than issue creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical comment-editing tools that might exist elsewhere.

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., needing an existing issue), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'linear_update_issue' which might also allow commenting. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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