zammad_create_shared_draft

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals side effects (PUT semantics: overwrites existing draft), auto-detection behavior, signature rendering with placeholder substitution and lazy loading, and detailed validation rules for reply_html. However, it does not mention authorization needs or rate limits. Overall, it provides substantial transparency beyond the bare minimum.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavior, then proceeds to validation rules. It is moderately lengthy but each sentence adds value. The validation section is detailed but could be slightly condensed or moved to parameter descriptions. Nevertheless, it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: creation/overwrite, auto-detection, signature, quoting, validation rules. It lacks mention of return values or error handling, but that is acceptable. The description is fairly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description does not add significant per-parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, except that it explains how ticket_id and reply_html are used in the auto-detection process. This adds some context but does not raise the score above baseline given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Create or overwrite the shared draft of a Zammad ticket as a Reply-All email.' It specifies the verb (create/overwrite), resource (shared draft), and context (Zammad ticket, Reply-All). The details about auto-detection, signature rendering, and blockquote further clarify scope. Siblings are different (internal note, get thread), so this tool is well-distinguished.

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 when to use this tool (to create/reply-all draft) but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use it. For example, it could say 'Use this for drafting a reply to a customer; for internal notes, use zammad_add_internal_note.' The absence of such guidance makes it less helpful for an agent deciding between tools.

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