Add task to ticket

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the description carries a lower burden, but it adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no permission requirements, no duplicate-handling, no note on how private tasks differ. The remaining text merely restates schema fields.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the purpose comes first, then the required/optional field breakdown. Efficient, though the field enumeration largely duplicates the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety, but for a mutation tool the description omits any usage context, side effects, or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description repeats the field list and value meanings (state 0/1/2, actiontime in seconds) rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('Add a task to a ticket') that cleanly separates it from siblings like glpi_add_followup, glpi_add_ticket_user, and the read counterpart glpi_list_ticket_tasks. It does not, however, explicitly name any alternative to help route the agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools an agent might confuse this with (followups, solutions, ticket users). Usage can only be inferred from the name.

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