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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does disclose a critical trait: a hard access gate that refuses non-Dock callers. It stops short of describing side effects (the schema hints tickets become GitHub issues) or what the caller receives on success. Strong on the access constraint, thinner on operational effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the access gate, then the fallback routing. The nested parenthetical about send_email/email_owner and desktop Settings is somewhat verbose but each clause is actionable routing information, so it earns its place.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (who may call it, what to do instead). It does not describe success response or duplicate-ticket behavior, but the sibling list_my_support_tickets partly covers follow-up, so the gap is minor.

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 the schema already documents body, kind, title, context, and attachmentUrls with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource: "File a support ticket." It goes further by naming a sibling alternative (request_limit_increase) and the non-Dock fallback paths, so an agent can place it against siblings. It slightly restates the tool name, which keeps it from a clean 5.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: only Dock-team agents may call it, everyone else is refused and should email agent-support@trydock.ai or ask their human. It also names request_limit_increase as the preferred tool for plan caps. Nothing is left to inference.

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