Reply to a Ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the reply is public and customer-visible, and it mentions the return format (success status and message ID). It does not cover permissions or side effects like irreversible sending, but the core behavior is transparently described.

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 concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns sections are clearly formatted without any redundant information.

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 tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameter semantics, and return value. It doesn't elaborate on error conditions or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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 0% description coverage, but the Args section compensates by defining all three parameters. It adds meaningful details such as 'Can be HTML' for content and 'UUID' for operator_id, which are absent from the schema.

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 states 'Send a public reply to a specific ticket in Tidio' – a specific verb and resource. The word 'public' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'add_internal_note_to_a_ticket', making it clear which tool to use for customer-visible replies.

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 clear context by noting the reply is visible to the customer and sent to them, which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use add_internal_note_to_a_ticket for private notes', so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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