create_support_ticket

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing side effects: stores in Supabase, syncs to Notion, sends email confirmation. It is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating side effects from use cases.

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 7 parameters, side effects, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or idempotency implications, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 43%, the description does not compensate by explaining parameter meaning beyond the schema. It fails to detail important parameters like category, priority, or metadata.

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 creates an IT support ticket, with specific use cases like bug reports, billing issues, and onboarding help. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create other entities (e.g., developer keys, referral codes).

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?

The description explicitly lists when to use the tool ('Use for bug reports, billing issues, broker connection problems, or onboarding help'). It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or offer alternatives.

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