promote_ticket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow (chain creation, related-ticket scan, candidate return, optional immediate nesting), but does not disclose what 'destructive' actually means here – whether the original ticket survives, whether promotion is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is efficient multi-line prose with little waste. The unexplained '(Decision 1)' reference is the one piece that does not earn its place.

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 explained. However, for a destructive mutation tool, the description leaves gaps on prerequisites, side effects on the source ticket, and the required completion_vision input – enough to be usable but not fully complete.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only loosely maps to nest_tickets ('nest specified tickets immediately') and never mentions the required completion_vision parameter. The visible schema does describe each field, which props this up to an adequate 3, but the description contributes little parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource ('Promote a standalone ticket into a chain') and explains the mechanism (creates a chain, scans for related tickets, returns nesting candidates). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic create_chain/create_ticket. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, and the unexplained '(Decision 1)' jargon adds noise.

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 agent can infer this applies when a standalone ticket should become a chain, and nesting is optional ('Optionally nests specified tickets immediately'). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. create_chain) guidance.

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