delete_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description shoulder the burden and discloses a key behavioral trait: the delete is soft and moves the ticket to trash (implying recoverability). This goes beyond the name itself, though it doesn't cover potential side effects or required permissions.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and behavior, earning its place efficiently.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core action and the soft-delete behavior. Lacking explicit return-value details is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 fully documents the only parameter (ticket_id) with type and description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Soft-delete a ticket') with a specific verb and resource, and adds clarifying detail ('moves to trash'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ticket or create_ticket.

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 implies this is the deletion tool and clarifies the soft-delete nature, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but for a delete operation this is reasonably clear.

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