save_ticket_assessment

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: revision audit history is recorded, mandatory assessment fields come from code, notes are supplemental, and ticket status is unaffected. It does not describe the return payload, but with annotations covering safety this is a strong disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The main action and the most important behavioral exclusion (ticket status unchanged) are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a low-complexity mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description gives enough context about audit history, code-owned mandatory fields, supplemental notes, and unchanged ticket status. Minor gaps remain around return values and exact assessment contents, but no output schema exists and the essential call context is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It meaningfully clarifies that notes are supplemental and that other assessment fields are code-supplied, but it says nothing about ticket_id beyond the schema's pattern. With only two simple parameters, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 ('Write ... assessment record for a ticket') and distinguishes the effect from ticket status changes. It is clear enough to separate from sibling save_* tools, though the phrase 'real local assessment record' is slightly vague.

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 implied by 'Write a real local assessment record for a ticket' and 'Does not change the original ticket status', but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over save_response_draft, save_escalation, or save_kb_draft. The status exclusion is helpful but not a full usage guide.

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