glpi_adicionar_tarefa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. While it gives hints about parameter units (actiontime in seconds) and state mapping, it lacks disclosure about mutability, error behavior, or required permissions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond parameter semantics.

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 consists of two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately listing parameter details. No extraneous text; every sentence serves a clear function.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error states, or prerequisites. For a tool with four parameters (two required), more context about the effect on the ticket and expected behavior is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that actiontime is in seconds and state uses specific integer values (1=A fazer, 2=Feito), adding value beyond the bare schema. However, ticket_id and content are not elaborated, leaving their meanings implicit.

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 'Adiciona uma tarefa ao chamado' (Adds a task to a ticket), which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'adicionar_acompanhamento' (add follow-up) and 'adicionar_solucao' (add solution) by specifying the task addition action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without comparative context.

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