Add user to ticket

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not obligated to restate it. It adds the fact that a user can occupy one of three roles, but says nothing about duplicate assignments, notifications, or required permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the role mapping is placed where an agent will read it. Slightly redundant with the schema's type description, but there is no filler.

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 all three required parameters are covered by the schema. For a simple, fully-specified mutation the description is adequate, with only duplicate-handling behavior left unstated.

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 tickets_id, users_id, and the type enum are already documented in the schema. The description's type mapping repeats the schema verbatim and adds no extra meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a user to a ticket") and enumerates the three role kinds, so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't name or contrast any sibling (e.g., glpi_add_ticket_group, glpi_list_ticket_users), but the scope is clear from the name-plus-description.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named even though close siblings exist (glpi_add_ticket_group, glpi_delete_ticket_user, glpi_update_ticket). The role list implies intent but supplies no routing logic.

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