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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, it discloses visibility to every tester, notifications, the thread announcement, permanent loss of privacy, eligibility restrictions, and token expiry. It also explains the non-obvious dry-run behavior: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus a confirmation token.

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?

Although relatively long, every sentence communicates a distinct consequence, restriction, or invocation requirement, and the core action is front-loaded. Emphasis on "ONE-WAY" and "TWO-STEP TOOL" appropriately highlights safety-critical information without wasting prose.

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 an irreversible mutation without an output schema, the description covers the effects, exclusions, permanence, consent requirement, preview behavior, and token lifecycle. Together with the fully documented input schema and consistent annotations, it provides sufficient context for safe selection and invocation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including identifier sources and the basic confirmation-token workflow. The description adds operational meaning by connecting the token to a user-visible preview, explicit approval, and expiration "after a few minutes," though it adds little new information about productId or ticketId.

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 clause identifies the exact resource and transition: "Makes an internal ticket public." It then clarifies the resulting visibility and interactions, distinguishing this operation from generic siblings such as updateTicket, updateTicketState, and replyToTicket.

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 excludes chat tickets and tickets in App (SDK) projects, while the irreversibility warning helps the agent assess whether publication is appropriate. The preview-and-explicit-approval instructions precisely describe when and how to proceed with the executing call.

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