linear_createRoadmap

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds that this operation creates a new roadmap rather than updating or deleting one. It does not disclose additional side effects such as permission requirements or duplicate-name behavior, but with annotations covering the basic safety profile this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. 'Create a new roadmap in Linear' is the minimal useful statement of the operation and every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

For a simple create operation with a full output schema and self-documenting parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not distinguish a roadmap from conceptually similar Linear entities like projects, initiatives, or milestones, nor does it note potential prerequisites such as ownerId validation, so the agent must rely on the tool name and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('roadmap'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like linear_updateRoadmap and linear_archiveRoadmap. The qualifier 'new' reinforces that this is the creation entry point rather than a read or modification 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?

The description clearly implies this tool is for creating a new roadmap, which is a distinct use case from the update, archive, and read siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the creation intent is unambiguous and provides clear context.

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