create_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly identifies the tool as creating a ticket (a write operation), but does not disclose any side effects, validation behavior (e.g., email must be known), or potential errors beyond what is in the schema parameter descriptions.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters including nested objects and no output schema. It does not describe return values, error handling, or the overall flow of creating a ticket. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 parameter description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, thus meets the baseline.

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 the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new support ticket') within the workspace. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'create_ticket_comment' which adds comments to existing tickets.

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 implies the tool is for creating tickets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The schema indicates the need for a known contact email, but this is not highlighted in the description.

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