kitty.ticket.create_subtask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose without adding details about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether the parent ticket must exist in the same project), permissions, or return value. The phrase 'under a parent ticket' adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 sentence with no filler words, front-loading the action and object. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential purpose, aligning with the expectation that every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple (a create operation with 4 parameters), but the description lacks sufficient context for correct invocation: no mention of required fields, parameter semantics, or return behavior. Sibling tools and missing annotations increase the need for a richer description, which is absent. The description is too sparse to fully guide 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only projectSlug has a description), and the tool description does not mention any parameters. The description's reference to 'parent ticket' indirectly clarifies parentId, but it does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. Titles, descriptions, and constraints for title, parentId, and description are otherwise undocumented.

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 ('Create') and resource ('subtask under a parent ticket'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like kitty.ticket.create (which creates a top-level ticket) and other ticket operations. The parent-child relationship is explicitly stated, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 usage context by naming 'subtask' and 'parent ticket', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as kitty.ticket.create. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, though the name and sibling set make the differentiation reasonably inferable.

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