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

The description explicitly marks it as 'WRITE / MUTATING' and mentions 'GraphQL: mutation issueCreate', indicating that it modifies data. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence covering the purpose and key parameters. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., breaking out optional fields), but it is not verbose and front-loads the mutation warning.

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 the full schema coverage, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what is required. It mentions the critical dependency on linear_list_teams for teamId.

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 already has descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the priority scale and mentioning markdown for description, which is already in the schema.

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 it creates a new issue in Linear, using the verb 'creates' and specifying the resource 'issue'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_get_issue (read) or linear_search_issues (search) by explicitly labeling it as a write/mutating operation.

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?

It specifies that teamId is required and must come from linear_list_teams, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the mutation context and required fields make usage clear.

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