gorelo_create_ticket

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not mention that the call sends a 'ticket created' email when SendTicketCreatedEmail is set, that CreatedOn/ClosedOn permit backdating imports, or that referenced IDs must already exist. For a create operation with many side-effect-capable fields, this leaves real behavioral gaps unflagged.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so it is not bloated. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any useful content.

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 payload is a nested body object with roughly 23 fields, four of them required, and there is no output schema to explain what is returned. For a mutation of this complexity, a bare one-liner leaves the agent without any information about the returned identifier, preconditions, or validation constraints that the schema alone doesn't convey contextually.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every nested field (Title, StatusId, GroupId, TypeId, backdating fields, email flag) is already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a clear verb (creates) and resource (a ticket in Gorelo), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from ticket-adjacent siblings such as gorelo_create_ticket_comment, gorelo_create_ticket_approval, or gorelo_create_ticket_side_conversation, and says nothing about scope or what a created ticket contains.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing valid GroupId/StatusId/TypeId values first via gorelo_list_ticket_statuses and gorelo_list_groups), and no mention of alternatives such as gorelo_update_ticket. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.

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