cigchat_team_ticket_lists_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the required 'Manage Team' scope, which is valuable context, and the endpoint implies a POST write operation. However, it lacks details about return values, error conditions, or side effects of creating a ticket.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded, stating the action, endpoint, and auth requirement in two short sentences. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 25 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the relationship between listId and the other fields, what constitutes a valid ticket, or how the optional fields map to a ticket's structure. The agent would likely need to retrieve the schema and other documentation to use it correctly.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. With 25 parameters and only 48% schema description coverage, many fields (e.g., title, text1-5, number1-2) remain undocumented both in the schema and the description, forcing the agent to guess their semantics.

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 action ('create new ticket') and the resource ('/team/ticket-lists/{listId}/create'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update and delete by focusing solely on creation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites beyond the auth scope. It doesn't mention that a valid listId is needed or how to obtain it, nor does it exclude cases where other ticket operations might be more appropriate.

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