delete_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it deletes a ticket by ID, but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to linked items (e.g., followups, links), or if any permissions are required. This is a destructive operation with significant missing context.

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, short sentence: 'Supprime un ticket par son ID.' It is front-loaded with the action and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the consequences of deletion (irreversibility, cascading effects), whether the operation is confirmable, or what happens if the ticket does not exist. While the tool is simple, an agent still lacks critical context to correctly assess the side effects.

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 has a single required parameter 'ticket_id' (integer) with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description 'par son ID' (by its ID) does add minimal clarification that the parameter corresponds to the ticket's ID. However, since the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description adds no format or constraint details, it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Supprime un ticket par son ID' uses a specific verb ('Supprime' = deletes) and resource ('ticket') with a clear scope ('par son ID' = by its ID). This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ticket, get_ticket, and search_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage (deleting a ticket) is implied by the verb, but there is no explicit context such as 'use when a ticket should be permanently removed' or 'do not use if you need to archive instead'.

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