glpi_atribuir_chamado

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this is a write operation, what side effects occur (e.g., notifications), or required permissions. The term 'define' is vague and does not clarify the action's nature.

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 is extremely brief (two sentences) with no extra words. However, it is under-specified; conciseness at the cost of completeness is not helpful.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover essential context like how to use parameters, what the tool returns, and how it fits with siblings. It provides only the minimum purpose.

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%. The description only explains the 'role' parameter (listing its allowed values). It does not explain 'ticket_id', 'users_id', or 'groups_id', nor how to specify an actor (e.g., at least one of users_id or groups_id required).

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 uses the verb 'Define' and specifies the resource 'actor' in a ticket, listing three possible roles (requester, observer, assign). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that handle other ticket actions like adding follow-ups or solutions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or comparison to similar tools like glpi_consultar_chamado or glpi_atualizar_chamado.

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