linear_createComment

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

Annotations are all false (no readOnlyHint, no idempotency, no destructiveness), providing no safety profile. The description carries the burden but adds no behavioral detail: it does not mention that a comment is persistently created, that permissions may be required, or that notifications could fire. It only restates the action without consequences or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and lists all valid target types efficiently. There is no redundant phrasing or empty filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

With 11 parameters and multiple optional target IDs, the description is critically incomplete. It never states that exactly one target identifier (issueId, projectId, etc.) or parentId is required, nor does it clarify which combinations are invalid. An agent could easily omit a target or provide multiple, leading to errors. The output schema exists but does not compensate for this missing invocation rule.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters are documented. The description adds value by enumerating the target resource types (issue, project, etc.), which clarifies which ID parameter to use, but it does not explain selection rules (e.g., exactly one target must be provided) or how parameters interact. This is baseline-level contribution given the schema already describes each parameter.

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 'Add a comment to' followed by a list of valid target resources (issue, project, initiative, update, document content, threaded reply). This is a specific verb+resource pattern that distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_updateComment and linear_deleteComment. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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 implies usage context (use this to create a comment), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It does not point to linear_updateComment or linear_deleteComment for editing/deleting. Since the verb 'Add' inherently separates creation from modification, the guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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