create_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirements and constraints, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether ticket ID is returned), success/failure signals, or idempotency. The phrase 'Plain write — not gated' adds some transparency but overall incomplete.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and covers all parameters efficiently. It could benefit from structured bullets but remains concise without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers all parameters and constraints (length limits, optional attachments). Missing return value info and potential errors, but sufficient for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: linking department to list_ticket_departments, clarifying priority enum values, and detailing attachment format (base64, no data: URI prefix). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Open a support ticket' as the primary action, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reply_ticket and close_ticket by focusing on creation.

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 mentions required scope ('tickets:write') and that it is 'not gated,' but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to reply to an existing ticket). Implicit usage from context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use.

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