tickets_add_line_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait: name and description are always required even with product_id, unlike invoices/estimates. Missing details like effect on total, idempotency, or required permissions.

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 efficient sentences. First defines purpose, second delivers crucial behavioral note. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for a simple add operation. It covers purpose, key behavioral requirement, and contrast with siblings. Lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing ticket) or return value, but overall adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds critical nuance: name and description are effectively required despite not being in the schema's required array. This overrides the schema's requirement field and aids correct usage.

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 action 'Add a line item' and specifies the target resource 'to a ticket'. It differentiates from similar tools for invoices/estimates by noting the required name/description difference.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use (adding line items to tickets) and contrasts with invoices/estimates, implying alternative tools. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or direct mention of sibling removal/update tools.

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