create_outage_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a key trait: this tool 'files a real report with FiberOne', signaling a real external side effect. But it does not mention authorization requirements, idempotency, reversibility, or what happens after creation, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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, dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the side-effect warning earns its place immediately after.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward creation call: all required parameters are documented in the schema and the real-world side effect is flagged. However, with no output schema or annotations, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a ticket ID) and gives no guidance on when to prefer it over the ticket-reading sibling tools.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, including the source of category and priorityId. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, so the baseline of 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 clear action and resource: 'Create a new support ticket.' The 'action tool' label and 'files a real report with FiberOne' help distinguish it from the read-only get_* siblings. Minor weakness: the tool name says 'outage' but the description says generic 'support ticket', so the scope is slightly ambiguous.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as an action tool, implying it should be used when the user wants to file a real report rather than query data like the sibling get_* tools. However, it does not state exclusions or point to alternatives such as get_outage_tickets or get_ticket for viewing existing tickets.

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