Create ticket

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the baseline is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing that some ticket forms impose conditional mandatory fields and how to recover from missing_field. It does not disclose side effects such as requester notifications or what happens to defaults like source/status/priority.

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 sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the conditional requirement caveat following. Every clause conveys actionable 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?

An output schema exists and the 26-parameter schema is fully documented, so the description need not explain returns or field formats. The conditional-required and error-recovery notes cover the main ambiguity for this tool; missing is any mention of downstream effects (notifications, SLA timers) on ticket creation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents enum-like value lists (source, status, impact) and attachment restrictions. The description adds meaning the schema cannot: that group_id, responder_id, category and custom fields may become mandatory depending on the form in use, which changes how an agent should populate them.

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 ('Create an incident or service-request ticket'), which is more precise than the title 'Create ticket'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like create_child_ticket or create_service_request, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives one explicit routing rule: consult get_ticket_fields when the API reports missing_field, which is genuinely useful error-recovery guidance. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over create_child_ticket or create_service_request, which are the closest alternatives.

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