createSupportTicket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does explain key creation behavior: a new incident/inquiry is created, a unique ID is assigned, and priority-based routing occurs. It does not disclose permissions, potential side effects, or what the caller receives in response, which matters for a mutation tool without an output schema.

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?

Two sentences and no filler; the action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds concrete behavioral detail. The slight redundancy between 'Open' and 'Creates' prevents this from being a perfect 5.

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?

The tool is simple and its parameters are fully documented, but no annotations and no output schema mean the description should convey expected return value or side effects. It covers core behavior but omits what the caller gets back and any preconditions such as customer existence.

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 all four parameters; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond reaffirming that priority affects routing. This meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open'/'Creates') and resource ('support ticket in the CRM'), and specifies two concrete behaviors: assigning a unique ticket ID and routing to the support queue by priority. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read/list tools.

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?

Usage context is implied: this is the creation tool among get/list siblings, so the agent can infer it is for opening a new ticket rather than retrieving existing data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion guidance.

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