generate_support_bundle

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent call, and the description usefully adds that the bundle contains only routine diagnostics and that a receipt itemizes what was sent — reassuring context for an upload that leaves the system. It does not state permission requirements or how long the bundle takes to build.

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?

Front-loaded with the problem hook, then the action and its justification, then the parameter note. Three sentences, each earning its place, with no filler beyond a mild rhetorical opening.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the return side by describing the upload receipt, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter tool this is nearly complete, lacking only prerequisites such as authentication or ticket-context requirements.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'issue' parameter, but the description compensates with an explicit format hint and a concrete example ('scheduled delivery never fired'), which is more than the bare 'string' schema conveys. It could still clarify whether free-form detail or a category is expected.

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?

States a specific verb (build/attach) and resource (diagnostics bundle) plus the destination (a support ticket), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling sync_diagnostics, which is the nearest ambiguity in this tool set.

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 opening 'Having a dispatch problem?' gives a clear trigger condition for using this tool rather than the other dispatch-related siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to generate a bundle (e.g. for non-dispatch issues).

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