Create Ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions that the assigned_department_id defaults to the 'General department' when not provided and states the return value (created ticket ID). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., auto-creating a contact), permissions required, or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, an Args section that mirrors the schema, and a Returns section. It is appropriately sized for 4 parameters, with no unnecessary fluff, though slightly longer than minimal due to the parameter explanations.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 params, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides all critical information: parameter meanings, defaults, and the return type. It could be improved by mentioning error handling or side effects, but for a create operation, it covers the essential context sufficiently.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: contact_email, subject, message_content are required, and assigned_department_id is optional with a UUID type and default behavior. It adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type/title fields.

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 tool's specific action: 'Create a new ticket in Tidio' and adds context that it creates from a customer's perspective. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tickets, update_ticket, and delete_ticket.

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 clearly implies when to use it (when a new ticket needs to be created) and provides context about the customer perspective. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but given that this is the only create-ticket tool among siblings, the usage context is clear enough.

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