coronium_archive_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one key effect (closes from customer side) but omits other important traits such as reversibility, whether the ticket is deleted or moved, permissions required, and what the API returns. This is insufficient for a mutating action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb first and adds a clarifying parenthetical. It is perfectly concise.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome of the API call, whether archiving is permanent, or any side effects beyond the customer-facing closure. The low complexity is offset by the lack of essential context for safe invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention ticket_id at all. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no information about its format, source, or how to obtain it. With only one parameter, the description could have compensated but does not.

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 a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('a ticket'), and clarifies the effect ('closes it from the customer side'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling ticket tools like create, reply, get, and list.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ticket must be open), exclusions, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The parenthetical offers a hint of purpose but not usage context.

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