Create Zendesk Ticket

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds context: description becomes first public comment, new ticket id is returned, and custom field IDs come from admin settings. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return value, and workflow guidance.

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 8 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description explains the return value (ticket id) and provides post-creation steps. Could mention input validation or edge cases, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that description becomes the first comment, grouping optional fields, and directing users to search_users or admin settings for valid IDs. This surpasses the baseline.

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 'Create a new Zendesk support ticket with subject, description, and optional priority/type/assignee/tags.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_ticket and add_public_comment.

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 explicitly tells when to use alternatives: 'After creation, use update_ticket to change status or assignee, add_public_comment or add_private_note to reply, and manage_tags to adjust tags.' It also provides guidance on looking up valid IDs.

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