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

Annotations only indicate idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: preview is non-mutating, commit requires a token and returns replay status, MCP authorship is server-stamped and cannot be spoofed, subtickets are bounded/validated, and the tool never touches external providers. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies all key behaviors.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, preview behavior, commit flow, idempotency key requirement, server authority, validation, and external boundary. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a logical flow without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (preview/commit, atomicity, idempotency, nested subtickets) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the necessary workflow, return behaviors (normalized payload, predicted IDs, replay status), and constraints. It does not mention edge cases like what happens if the idempotency_key is reused with a different payload, but it is reasonably complete for an agent to use the tool 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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of mode, preview_token, and idempotency_key clearly, but does not describe the 'tickets' or 'parent_id' parameters. The schema itself does provide descriptions for some fields (idempotency_key, preview_token, status, ticket_type), so the description partially fills the gaps but not completely.

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 starts with 'Preview or idempotently commit one atomic owner-private batch of structured tickets and nested subtickets,' which clearly identifies the tool's action (preview/commit), resource (batch of tickets), and key characteristics (atomic, owner-private). It distinguishes itself from single-ticket tools like ticket_create by emphasizing batch and preview/commit flow.

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 explicitly outlines the two-phase usage: preview first, then commit with the exact returned preview_token. It also specifies that idempotency_key is always required and confirms the tool never mutates external providers. However, it does not directly name alternative tools or state when to use batch create over single create, though the batch context is implied.

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