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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: closing stops the SLA and triggers a satisfaction survey. This goes beyond the structured annotations and provides meaningful side-effect information.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by consequential effects and the alternative. No wasteful words; each sentence adds value.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, side effects (SLA stop, survey trigger), and alternative. It is complete and well-rounded, considering the low complexity and existing annotations.

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?

The only parameter, ticket_number, is self-explanatory from its name and schema (string or number). However, with 0% schema-description coverage, the description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter's format or requiredness. While not critical for this simple case, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 clearly states the tool closes a ticket and marks it as resolved. It distinguishes from the sibling tiflux_cancel_ticket by explicitly noting the alternative for wrongly opened tickets, providing clear differentiation.

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 when to use the tool (closing a resolved ticket) and when not to (if the ticket should not have been opened, use tiflux_cancel_ticket). This is a clear when/when-not with an alternative.

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