gorelo_create_ticket_approval

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with a creation tool. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — every listed contact starts in Pending status — but omits whether contacts are notified, whether the approval can be edited afterward, and what permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the one non-obvious behavioral fact immediately after. No filler.

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?

It is a mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema, yet the description never indicates what is returned (an approval identifier?) or what the caller should do next. Adequate to invoke, thin for a complex create operation.

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 both ticketId and the nested body fields are already documented. The sentence about contacts starting Pending adds a small amount of meaning to ContactIds, but no syntax, ordering, or limit details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("Creates an approval on a ticket"), which immediately separates it from gorelo_create_project_task_approval. It does not explicitly name that sibling or say how the two differ, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus gorelo_create_project_task_approval, no preconditions (ticket must exist, contacts must be valid), and no statement about what happens if an approval already exists. The agent must infer all of this.

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