When doc comments are required by a linter, the average value of doc comments trends towards worthless.
Documentation should tell you something the signature and name haven’t told you already. Not every public member needs extra explanation; when they do it may be better to rename them.
Perhaps valuable information is too often lost because the author doesn’t write a doc comment, but mandatory comments do not solve the problem. Mandatory comments lead to complacency with documentation that does nothing more than repeat the name or type.
Imagine two projects
Developers have good documentation habits and don’t need a linter forcing them to add necessary documentation. The presence of a doc comment is a signal that there is something interesting about it’s target. The code has a high signal to noise ratio so maintainers actually pay attention to comments and they are kept up to date. When a reviewer asks for a doc comment the author recognizes that there is something worth saying and thinks carefully about what to write.
Project with mandatory doc comments
Developers grow numb to comments which simply repeat information. The code has a low signal to noise ratio and maintainers don’t bother checking whether they’ve invalidated a doc comment because more often the comment was worthless to start. Most readers skim past comments and don’t bother to search out the rare documentation that adds value. The members which do need extra documentation still get worthless comments out of habit rather than the author or reviewer thinking critically about what should be written. Some members must get worthless comments so it becomes OK for any member to get a worthless comment.
Find better solutions
Great documentation won’t happen just because developers are forced to write any documentation. Encourage documentation in more subtle ways like seeking out and praising well written doc comments. Leave the linter for catching things that are likely mistakes, or will at least look that way to maintainers.