glpi_create_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'creates' without mentioning permissions, input requirements beyond the schema, potential side effects, or error behavior, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 that clearly communicates the core purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning 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?

Despite having only one parameter, the description lacks essential context for an agent, such as typical use cases, required fields, or interaction with sibling creation tools. The absence of output schema and annotations means the description should compensate, but it fails to do so comprehensively.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'input' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states ('Campos do objeto a ser criado').

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 'Cria um novo ticket' clearly states the tool creates a new ticket, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like glpi_create_problem and glpi_create_change by explicitly targeting 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_problem or create_change. There are no usage exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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