create_ticket

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the important behavioral trait that user confirmation is required before execution, providing context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences long: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and exclusions. It is front-loaded and every sentence is necessary with no redundancy.

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?

Despite the nested object parameters and lack of output schema, the description covers when to use, confirmation requirement, and exclusions. It is adequate for a simple creation tool but could mention response or validation behavior. Still, it is sufficiently complete for the task.

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 description does not describe any parameters. The input schema has a nested object with 6 required properties, each with descriptions, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 the tool creates a new support ticket and explicitly distinguishes it from viewing tickets (list_tickets) and cloud incidents (get_cloud_incidents). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use (user wants to create a new support ticket) and when-not-to-use (viewing existing tickets, cloud incidents) with sibling tool names. It also instructs to ask the user to confirm details before executing.

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