reply_ticket

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses auth scope (tickets:write), writes are not gated, and constrains body length, attachment count, and base64 encoding. Does not mention idempotency or rate limits, but sufficient for a simple write operation.

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?

Extremely concise with no redundant words. Each sentence adds unique information: purpose, scope, parameter sources, and constraints. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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?

Covers usage, parameters, constraints, and auth. Missing output description (no output schema) – agent doesn't know what the response contains. For a simple reply action, this is a minor gap; overall fairly 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining id comes from list_tickets, restating body length constraints, and detailing attachments format (max 5, base64). Clarifies intent 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?

Clearly states the action (post a reply) and resource (existing support ticket). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ticket and close_ticket by focusing on replying to an existing ticket. Includes scope requirement and input source guidance.

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?

Provides explicit scope requirement and notes id comes from list_tickets. Implicitly distinguishes from create_ticket by specifying 'existing' ticket, but lacks explicit 'do not use for creating tickets' statement. Clear enough for most agents.

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