tomticket_set_customer_create_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the most critical trait — that this is a production-altering mutation ('altera producao') — which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects on existing tickets, reversibility, authorization requirements, or whether the change is immediate. The disclosure is adequate but shallow for a mutating operation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero wasted words. The production-change warning is front-loaded before the purpose, which is exactly the right ordering for a risky mutation tool. Every token serves a function: risk warning + purpose.

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 simple flag-setter with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the primary risk. However, it leaves gaps: the explicit 0/1 semantics of create_tickets are only implied, the return/confirmation behavior is unspecified, and there are no preconditions mentioned (e.g., customer existence). Adequate but with clear gaps relative to the zero-annotation context.

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 essential meaning to the create_tickets parameter, which lacks any schema description. 'Define se o cliente pode criar chamados' directly explains what the 0/1 integer represents, compensating for the schema gap on the most important parameter. It doesn't explicitly state the 0=disabled/1=enabled mapping, but the intent is strongly implied. customer_id and customer_type_id are already well documented in 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 — setting whether a customer can create tickets ('Define se o cliente pode criar chamados') — with a clear resource (customer) and capability (create tickets). It is distinct from siblings like tomticket_create_ticket (which creates a ticket) and tomticket_set_customer_access (broader access), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. The verb 'Define' is slightly weak but the meaning is unambiguous.

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. The 'ATENCAO: altera producao' warning is a caution about production impact, but it does not state preconditions, exclusion criteria, or when to prefer a sibling tool like tomticket_set_customer_access or tomticket_get_customer_permissions. An agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and schema.

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