cmd_new_ticket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: a conditional return value (a chain-creation prompt when the type triggers the Lockstep threshold) and the fact that a Partner handles follow-up. It stops short of explaining what the 'Lockstep threshold' or 'Partner' actually are.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by the conditional behavior. Efficient overall, though the wrapped formatting and undefined jargon ('Lockstep', 'Partner') add a little noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully documented, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, the near-total absence of parameter guidance leaves the definition incomplete for correct 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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and it barely does. It alludes to a 'ticket type' but never explains the type values, the meaning of entity, priority, or tags, nor how title/description/type relate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create a new ticket') and adds the qualifier 'Generic — human specifies everything,' which hints this is the raw command variant among the many specialized cmd_* siblings (cmd_bug_fix, cmd_refactor, etc.). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the plain create_ticket sibling, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied. The description notes a conditional ('If the ticket type triggers Lockstep threshold (not maintenance)') but gives no guidance on when to prefer cmd_new_ticket over create_ticket or the specialized command variants, nor any prerequisites.

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