Close/resolve an open support ticket. Use fetch_open_tickets first to get the case_id.
Close/resolve an open support ticket. Use fetch_open_tickets first to get the case_id.
case_id (string, required) — The case number of the ticket to close (e.g., "ABC1234")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | The case number of the ticket to close (e.g., "ABC1234") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the ticket must be open and that fetch_open_tickets should be used first, which is context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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 short but repeats the same sentence twice: 'Close/resolve an open support ticket' appears in both the opening and the 'When to use' section. This redundancy is unnecessary, though the overall length is acceptable.
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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the workflow, prerequisite, and parameter semantics. It does not mention error conditions or return values, but the idempotent and non-destructive hints from annotations fill in safety context. Overall, complete enough.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents case_id. The description adds the note 'Use fetch_open_tickets first to get the case_id,' which helps the agent locate the parameter value. Baseline 3 plus this extra context gives a 4.
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 begins with 'Close/resolve an open support ticket,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes resolve from siblings like update_ticket and delete_ticket by focusing on closing/resolving an open case, and it references fetch_open_tickets for obtaining the ID.
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?
It explicitly states 'Use fetch_open_tickets first to get the case_id,' providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not mention alternative tools like update_ticket or delete_ticket, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.
Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.
With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.
The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.
