Create Tickets

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

The description richly discloses critical behaviors: atomic creation with partial failure rolling back, key resolution, cycle rejection, and the requirement for the 'create' flag. This goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects and constraints.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause contributes essential information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers core behaviors thoroughly. However, it does not specify the return value or error handling, and since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what a successful call returns. This is a minor gap in an otherwise strong description.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the role of temporary keys, id minting, and the atomicity semantics. It enriches understanding of parameters like 'key' and 'tickets' even though the schema already documents them well.

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 publishes a whole breakdown in one call, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_ticket and edit_map by emphasizing batch creation, though the metaphorical 'publish' may not be immediately obvious.

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 implies usage for bulk ticket creation and mentions the need for the 'create' flag, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison with sibling tools, so guidance is largely implicit.

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