tomticket_reply_ticket_as_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does real work: 'ATENCAO: altera producao' flags a production mutation, and 'Nao dispara email automaticamente' corrects the likely wrong assumption that replying triggers an email. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the two disclosed behaviors are precisely the ones most likely to cause harm if ignored.

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 clauses, each carrying distinct information: production warning, purpose, and the no-email behavior. The warning is front-loaded so the risk is seen before the action, and no sentence is redundant with the schema or the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two most critical operational facts but omits others an agent would want: expected return value, permission requirements, and whether the reply alters ticket state. It is adequate for safe invocation, but not fully complete given the lack of structured annotations to backfill those details.

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 67% — ticket_id and attachments are already documented in the schema, leaving only message undocumented. The description adds no direct parameter details, though its 'como cliente' framing implicitly tells the agent that message content should be written from the customer's perspective. With schema coverage above 50%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource — 'Responde o chamado' (replies to the ticket) — and adds the critical modality 'como cliente' (as the customer), which is exactly what separates this from sibling tomticket_reply_ticket. An agent can distinguish this tool from the other reply/comment tools without opening either schema, because the customer-perspective constraint is explicit.

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 phrase 'como cliente' conveys the core selection context: use this when the reply must be issued from the customer's side, versus tomticket_reply_ticket (operator side) or tomticket_comment_ticket (internal comment). The 'Nao dispara email automaticamente' note also informs the decision if the actual goal is to email the customer. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or direct naming of alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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