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

Beyond the annotation, it discloses that this is a write operation, that an email side effect is opt-in via send_created_email (default false), and the underlying endpoint. It does not say what happens on partial failure or whether the created ticket is returned, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the write action and the required ids, with no filler. Every clause carries operational information.

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 14-parameter creation tool it covers the required fields and the notable email side effect well. However, with no output schema and no statement about what the call returns (e.g., the new ticket id), the agent lacks a key piece of context for chaining to gorelo_get_ticket or gorelo_add_ticket_comment.

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 description adds meaning for four parameters (the three required ids and the email flag), including a conditional rule for when to set send_created_email that the schema does not express. With 64% schema coverage and 14 parameters, remaining fields like client_id, contact_id, and description are left to the schema alone.

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 'WRITE: create a service ticket', a specific verb plus resource, and the verb distinguishes it from siblings like gorelo_list_tickets, gorelo_get_ticket, and gorelo_update_ticket. The POST /v1/tickets endpoint reinforces the create semantics.

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 gives explicit prerequisites for the required identifiers and names the exact lookup tools (gorelo_list_ticket_statuses, gorelo_list_groups, gorelo_list_ticket_types), which is actionable guidance. It does not state when to prefer gorelo_update_ticket or gorelo_add_ticket_comment instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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