tomticket_finish_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action 'altera producao' (changes production), clarifies that it does not automatically trigger emails, and explains that time_work logs worked minutes. This is useful side-effect and safety information, though it does not cover reversibility or permissions.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The warning comes first, followed by the core action and then two key behavioral details. Every sentence adds distinct information without 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 having no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential points: the action, the production impact, the email side effect, and the time_work behavior. It omits response details and reversibility, but the full parameter schema coverage means an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal param-specific value by clarifying that time_work logs worked minutes, but this is a small increment over the schema.

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 specific action and resource: 'Finaliza o chamado' (finishes the ticket). This clearly separates it from list/get/reply/comment/evaluate tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the similar-sounding close_status tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'finaliza'.

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