File a ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it discloses channel creation/naming, category filing, embed/button behavior, closing rename behavior, and the paid-on-Paid-click state change. This goes far beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 every sentence earns its place. The behavioral details are dense but not padded, and the payment guidance is compact.

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 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, side effects, conditional payment usage, and ticket lifecycle. It does not explicitly state a return value or success response, but the operational details are sufficient given the rich schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful usage semantics by linking type 'payment' with amountUsd and explaining the paid lifecycle. It also clarifies the title's role as the embed heading. This modest addition raises it above the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Open a ticket on a game' and explicitly ties it to the /ticket Discord command. The description clearly distinguishes this creation/opening action from siblings like close_ticket, set_ticket_stage, and list_tickets.

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 contextual guidance such as 'Use type payment with amountUsd to ask for money' and references the /ticket command as the equivalent. It does not explicitly name alternatives/exclusions, but the sibling names make the main when-to-use distinction obvious.

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