coronium_create_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Open a new support ticket,' giving no information about side effects, authentication requirements, irreversibility, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of 6 words, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition. It earns its place by clearly stating the core purpose, even if other dimensions suffer from the brevity.

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?

The tool is a simple create operation, but with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameters, the description should provide more context. It lacks any mention of required fields, priority options, response behavior, or relation to other ticket tools. The description is minimal but not enough for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of them. The parameter names (subject, message, priority) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no specifics about their meaning, usage, or interplay. An agent must infer everything from names and schema constraints.

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 'Open a new support ticket' clearly identifies the action (open/new) and resource (support ticket), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tickets, get_ticket, and reply_to_ticket. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which other ticket tools might be more appropriate. The only hint is the tool name itself, which is not enough.

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