create_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create a support ticket,' which implies a write operation, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether a confirmation is sent, if the ticket is immediately visible, or any permissions required). The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 extremely short—only four words—which makes it concise but under-specified. It lacks any elaboration that would help the agent use the tool effectively, and while it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place by providing meaningful guidance beyond the tool's name.

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's complexity (7 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention return values, assumptions, or any usage context that would help an agent know when to invoke this tool and what to expect from it.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. Since the structured schema already explains each parameter, the description does not need to repeat them; however, it also provides no additional context or clarification beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Créer un ticket support' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (support ticket), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tickets, get_ticket, add_ticket_message, and close_ticket. It is specific enough to identify the tool's primary function, though it lacks any additional context about the ticket creation workflow.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_ticket_message or assign_ticket. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer a different tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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