resolve_ticket_tool

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It discloses that it resolves/closes a ticket and optionally adds a comment, which implies mutation. However, it lacks details like whether the comment is added before resolution, permissions required, or if the ticket state changes are documented. The return type is a 'Confirmation message' which the output schema may cover, but without annotation the transparency is partial.

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 concise and to the point, with the main action stated first and parameters listed clearly. It includes a returns section, making it structured without unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes.

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 tool has an output schema, return format is likely covered. However, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist, permissions), any side effects beyond resolution, or how this differs from similar tools. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 explain parameters. It does: 'ticket_id: The ticket ID number' and 'comment: Optional comment to add'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property types, though it doesn't elaborate on formats or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 verb 'Resolve/close' and the resource 'ticket', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like set_ticket_status_tool and update_ticket_tool by specifying the action of resolving/closing, though it does not explicitly mention those alternatives.

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 implies when to use it (when resolving a ticket) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that this is preferred over set_ticket_status_tool for closure, though the action is specific enough.

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