api_post_v2_tickets

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the purpose. Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and is destructive, and the description simply confirms a write action ('Создать'). No additional context is provided about side effects, permissions, or consequences.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the endpoint and action. It is concise and free of redundant wording, though it may be too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of multiple sibling ticket tools and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, how this creation differs from similar endpoints, and any caveats. The 5-parameter schema is documented, but the description itself does not provide enough context for reliable tool selection.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with all 5 parameters described with examples. The description itself does not mention parameters, but the schema provides sufficient semantic detail, 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'POST /api/v2/tickets — Создать обращение' (Create a ticket). It is unambiguous about the action and target, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like api_post_v2_tickets_ip or api_post_v2_tickets_id, so it falls short of a 5.

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. The description only states the action without any context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the endpoint name alone.

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