Create Luma ticket type

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive create operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by requiring explicit confirmation before acting and by directing the agent to review key attributes prior to confirming. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 short sentences deliver the core action, the conditional confirmation gate, and a compact review checklist. No filler words are present, and the most important operational instruction is front-loaded.

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?

With 14 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for an agent to reliably construct the call. Key details about price representation, flexible-price semantics, sale date formats, capacity requirements, and return behavior are absent.

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 only 7%, so the description must compensate. It names conceptual areas like price, currency, visibility, approval, sale dates, and capacity, which map to several schema parameters. However, it does not explain units, constraints, or relationships such as cents being in minor currency units, how free/paid/flexible interact, or which fields are required.

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 opens with a clear action ('Create') and resource ('ticket type'), and further specifies the variants: free, paid, or flexible-price. This distinguishes it from sibling ticket-type tools like get_ticket_type, update_ticket_type, and delete_ticket_type.

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 clearly states that this tool must only be used after explicit user confirmation and instructs the agent to review the event, price, currency, visibility, approval, sale dates, and capacity before confirming. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the confirmation gating is strong usage context.

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