tomticket_create_organization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The opening warning 'ATENCAO: altera producao' adds real value by flagging this as a production-mutating operation. However, it does not disclose idempotency behavior implied by return_id_if_exists, side effects, or permission requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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 short and properly front-loaded: the production warning comes before the action, and both clauses carry information. It leans toward under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, which prevents a top score.

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 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, a single sentence plus a warning is severely inadequate. The agent has no way to learn the return shape, the effect of return_id_if_exists, or which optional fields matter for common usage scenarios.

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 contributes zero parameter information. With schema description coverage at only 7%, 13 of 14 parameters (site, email, portfolio_id, strict_mail, return_id_if_exists, etc.) are undocumented in both the description and the schema, so an agent cannot reliably determine how to populate them.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — 'Cria uma organizacao' (creates an organization) — so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with closely related siblings such as tomticket_update_organization or tomticket_list_organizations, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 about when to create an organization versus updating an existing one, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether a portfolio_id or email is normally required). An agent must infer appropriate usage purely from sibling tool names.

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