reply_support_ticketReply to a customer support ticket after signed-in browser approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| ticket_id | Yes | ||
| confirmation_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish a non-read-only, non-idempotent write profile, so the description adds the useful behavioral trait of depending on a signed-in browser session with approval. But the clause is ambiguous about whether approval must already exist or is triggered by this call, and no failure behavior or side effects are described.
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?
A single 10-word sentence with the core action front-loaded and the conditional requirement appended. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation data, and every word 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?
The output schema covers return values, and ticket_id and message are largely self-explanatory. However, the meaning of confirmation_id, the operational semantics of 'signed-in browser approval' (including behavior when approval is absent), and duplicate-reply or idempotency concerns are left unaddressed, making this only partially complete for a write action.
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%, and the description names none of the three parameters. ticket_id and message are self-evident from names and schema constraints, but confirmation_id — an optional field with an unclear purpose — is explained nowhere, leaving a genuine gap the description was positioned to fill.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reply to a customer support ticket'), clearly stating the core action and distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_support_ticket and close_support_ticket. The trailing 'after signed-in browser approval' clause slightly muddies the purpose statement, but the central action remains unambiguous.
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 phrase 'after signed-in browser approval' implies a precondition for use, giving the agent some sense of when the tool is viable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as close_support_ticket or create_support_ticket, and no statement about when to prefer this over other support-ticket actions.
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 are clearly separated by resource and action (cart, orders, tickets, picks, payments), so an agent can generally select the right one. The only notable ambiguity is resume_payment vs retry_payment, which both describe acting on an unpaid hosted payment attempt with nearly identical wording.
All 29 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun (or verb_preposition_noun) pattern with standard verbs like get, list, create, close, remove, and set. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic names.
At 29 tools this is a heavy surface, but the broad e-commerce scope (catalog, cart, checkout, payment, orders, support, rewards) justifies most of them. A few payment-attempt tools could be consolidated, so it sits at the overbuilt rather than absurdly bloated end.
The set covers the main customer journey from browsing/searching sarees through cart, checkout, payment status, orders, and post-purchase support. Minor gaps exist—for example, no explicit apply_coupon/redeem_points tool or standalone catalogue listing—but agents can work around them with validate_coupon, checkout summary, and search.