Create ticket

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of side effects such as rule engine processing, notifications to assigned users, or that repeated calls create duplicate tickets (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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, action first, then a compact field list. Every token is doing work; the only minor flaw is that the field list is unprioritized and mixes identifiers with display fields without signaling requiredness.

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 create tool with an opaque nested-object schema and an output schema, the description gives useful field hints but omits required fields (name/content), entity/permission context, and creation side effects. Adequate to attempt a call, but an agent would likely need to guess at required inputs.

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 is effectively an opaque passthrough ('Ticket fields' with additionalProperties: {}), so the description carries the real semantic load by naming key fields and decoding the type enum ('1=Incident, 2=Request'). This adds genuine meaning beyond the schema, though it omits which fields are required and the accepted values for urgency/impact/priority.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create a new ticket'), which is straightforward and clearly distinct from sibling mutations like glpi_update_ticket, glpi_create_problem, and glpi_create_change. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or explain scope (e.g., which entity the ticket lands in), so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus glpi_create_problem, glpi_create_change, or glpi_list_tickets, no mention of prerequisites (auth, entity selection), and no note about required vs optional fields. The description only lists candidate fields, leaving routing and preconditions entirely to inference.

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