Create Support Ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The wording 'File a new support ticket' indicates a mutation action, but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, idempotency, or what the returned response looks like. The statement about using retrieve_status afterward adds a little context about lifecycle, but falls short of explaining the immediate behavior of this call.

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 sentences with no verbosity: the first states the action and trigger, the second gives a useful next-step hint. Information is front-loaded—the action is in the first word—and every sentence 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 description gives the trigger condition and a follow-up instruction, but no output schema exists to state the returned ticket ID or other result fields. Since the agent will need an identifier to call retrieve_status afterward, this gap is not entirely covered. Still, the essential context for the creation decision is present.

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 input schema already describes all 4 parameters with high coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any new details about just for those fields; it only paraphrases the concept of a support ticket. It correctly fits the semantic framing of 'customer', but the schema still holds the detailed meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource—'File a new support ticket'—and scopes it to the concrete case 'when their issue can't be resolved in the current interaction'. It also distinguishes the action from checking an existing ticket by referring to retrieve_status, so the tool's identity is easy to grasp and separate from its most natural sibling.

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?

It clearly states a condition for calling this tool: only when the issue can't be resolved in the current interaction. The second sentence implies that already-created tickets should be handled via retrieve_status rather than creating another one, giving the agent a basic decision rule. However, it does not compare against other siblings like create_task or schedule_appointment, leaving some nuance unspecified.

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