Close or reopen a ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals concrete side effects: 'renames its channel from 🟢-0007 to closed-0007 and greys the embed, so the sidebar stops showing it as live work.' This goes beyond simple 'close/reopen' and informs the user about channel naming and embed visuals. It also confirms equivalence to the Close button and /close-ticket, which sets expectations. Missing details like permission requirements or error handling, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the primary purpose, then explains side effects, equivalence, and parameter naming. No redundant or vague statements. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and provides a model of concise, informative writing.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, side effects, equivalence to existing UI, and ticket identification. It explains the 'reopen' boolean implicitly via 'open a closed one back up.' It does not discuss return values or error scenarios, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, it is sufficiently complete. A small gap is not addressing prerequisites, but the mention of 'create_ticket' implies a prior creation step.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the ticket parameter: 'Name the ticket by its number (0007, or just 7) or by the id create_ticket handed back.' This explains flexible input formats (number without leading zeros, or the id from create_ticket) that the schema does not fully convey. The 'just 7' alias is a useful addition, making the parameter semantics clearer than schema alone.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Close a ticket once it is done, or open a closed one back up.' This clearly states the primary action and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_ticket (creates) and set_ticket_stage (changes stage). The reference to the Close button and /close-ticket further anchors its purpose.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: 'once it is done' for closing, and mentions reopening. It also equates the tool to existing UI/Discord commands, which signals the typical use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for changing stage or listing tickets), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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