Create ticket

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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the burden, and it delivers the highest-value disclosure available: the API returns a status envelope rather than the new ticket, forcing a follow-up list_tickets call to get the id. It also surfaces the attachment upload prerequisite, which is behavioral rather than structural.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero filler, with the creation scope front-loaded and the workflow (upload first, list afterward) laid out in call order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: identity resolution, auth-relevant context is delegated to a fully documented schema, the attachment prerequisite, and the surprising return shape. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each field. The description still adds non-schema semantics: projectId/projectHandle as interchangeable identifiers and the ordering constraint that attachmentFileIds must come from a prior upload_attachment call.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Create a new ticket in a project") with the identification mechanism named (projectId or projectHandle). An agent can immediately distinguish this from update_ticket, delete_ticket, and the comment/attachment siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear pre/post workflow: attachments must be uploaded via upload_attachment first and passed as attachmentFileIds, and list_tickets must be called afterward to obtain the id. It names the sibling tools and the ordering conditions, though it does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. vs. create_project or add_ticket_attachments).

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