create_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the creation action and the parent_id sub-ticket behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on creation (returned ID, assigned values, required parameters beyond title) or mention any side effects like notifications, authentication needs, or default board behavior when board_id is omitted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place. Very efficient and to the point.

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 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the sub-ticket capability and provides testing guidance, but doesn't clarify expected behavior for unspecified parameters (default status, required board context) or what the tool returns upon successful creation. Adequate but with clear gaps for a multi-parameter creation tool.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. The description adds meaning by clarifying parent_id's role in creating a sub-ticket, which aligns with the schema's own parent_id description. It also highlights status/board_id as relevant fields for testing context. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for title, status, or description semantics.

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 creates a ticket (or sub-ticket via parent_id), which is a specific verb+resource identification. It distinguishes sub-ticket creation as a distinct capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_ticket or move_ticket, though the action verb 'create' naturally sets it apart.

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 offers a practical usage note ('Prefer zz-scratch boards when testing live'), which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like create_lead or when not to use it. The guidance is partial and doesn't fully address tool selection context.

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