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

Annotations only convey destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial reverse operation (reopen) and the underlying endpoint POST /tickets/{ticket_id}/close, which tells the agent the effect is a state mutation that can be undone. That is genuine added context beyond the annotation.

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?

One compact sentence covering action, optional parameter, reverse operation, and endpoint — every clause earns its place with no repetition of the name or title.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies reversibility, the optional parameter's source, and the HTTP endpoint. The only minor gap is the absence of any return/confirmation detail, but that is largely covered by the annotation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by framing ticket_result_id as an optional ticket result and pointing to the tool that enumerates valid results, giving the agent a way to resolve the value rather than guessing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Close a ticket') and immediately qualifies the optional ticket result, which cleanly distinguishes it from create/update/reopen siblings.

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?

Explains the optional result path by pointing to trengo_list_ticket_results and names trengo_reopen_ticket as the inverse operation, so the agent knows the surrounding workflow. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions, but the routing context is clear.

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