linear_create_issue

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 this creates an issue (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The description mentions markdown support for description, which is useful context, but overall behavioral transparency is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each parameter description is brief but informative. There's no unnecessary verbiage. The only minor improvement would be front-loading more critical behavioral information before the parameter list.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters well, but lacks important context about authentication, error handling, and usage guidelines. For a 5-parameter creation tool, it should provide more behavioral context despite the output 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential semantic context for all 5 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'Issue title', 'Team ID to create issue in', 'Priority level (1=urgent, 4=low)'), which goes well beyond the bare schema. The priority scale explanation is particularly valuable. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or provide examples.

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 action ('Create a new Linear issue') and resource ('Linear issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like linear_update_issue by specifying creation rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation-related tools (none listed), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 like linear_update_issue or linear_search_issues. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The only implied context is that you need a team_id, but this is stated as a parameter requirement rather than usage guidance.

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