linear_createWebhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, and idempotentHint: false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'create,' which merely aligns with the readOnly hint. It does not disclose the mutation's effects, authentication requirements, or what happens on creation. With annotations present the bar is lower, but the description still contributes almost nothing beyond them. No contradiction exists.

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 short sentence, efficient and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized - no filler - but this is under-specification rather than concise richness. It avoids waste but also avoids substance.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 7 parameters (including resourceTypes, whose valid values are undocumented and have no enums) and an output schema. The description does not explain what event types are acceptable, whether the secret is required or auto-generated, or how team scoping works. Even though an output schema exists, the tool's behavior and parameter semantics are under-explained for a create operation of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not - no mention of url, resourceTypes, secret, label, or teamId. However, the schema property names themselves (url, secret, enabled, teamId, allPublicTeams) are largely self-explanatory, and resourceTypes is reasonably inferable as 'the event types to subscribe to.' The description adds zero value here, but the schema names carry some semantic weight.

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 webhook for integration events.' This distinguishes it from sibling operations like getWebhooks, updateWebhook, deleteWebhook, and rotateWebhookSecret, where the verb alone clarifies the intent. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with the update/delete siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the webhook siblings (getWebhooks, updateWebhook, deleteWebhook, rotateWebhookSecret). No context about prerequisites, when a webhook should be created, or when to prefer another sibling is given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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