linear_createIssueTemplate

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

Annotations all set to false (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Create', which implies mutation, but provides no detail on idempotency, permissions, error handling for duplicate names, or any side effects. This falls short of what a create operation should disclose.

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 with no fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and object. This is appropriately minimal for conciseness, though it lacks detail that would earn a 5 on other dimensions.

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?

The description is essentially a tautology of the tool's purpose. It provides no context on how to construct the templateData object (the nested JSON payload), which is a required parameter. It doesn't explain the output or differentiate from the many related create tools. The output schema exists but the description doesn't compensate for the under-specified templateData field, making the definition incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 parameters have descriptions (e.g., 'Template name', 'Template issue payload as JSON'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 applies per rubric since the schema already documents parameters. The description doesn't clarify the structure of templateData beyond what the schema vague 'JSON' says.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new issue template'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like linear_createIssue (creates an issue) and linear_createIssueFromTemplate (creates an issue from a template). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately clear.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to related tools like linear_updateIssueTemplate or linear_getIssueTemplates. The only implied context is the name, but no explicit usage guidance is given.

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