Start a status on a support ticket to begin its timer and update progress. Check department statuses first, then apply the status to change the ticket's current state.
ATENCAO: altera producao. Abre um status no chamado (inicia cronometro/status). Consulte status do departamento antes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | ||
| status_id | Yes | ||
| ticket_id | Yes | Identificador do chamado (ticket_id). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature with 'altera producao' and the effect of starting a timer/status. But it does not mention reversibility, side effects if a status is already active, or required 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 three short sentences with the warning front-loaded first. Every sentence earns its place: warning, core function, and prerequisite. No fluff or repetition.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives some context (production impact, timer start, department lookup) but leaves significant gaps: failure behavior, handling of existing statuses, return format, and authentication requirements. An agent may struggle to know what happens after calling it.
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 only 33%, with ticket_id documented but status_id and comment left to inference. The description does not explain how to format or obtain status_id beyond suggesting department statuses, nor what the comment parameter is for. It does not compensate for the schema gap.
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: 'Abre um status no chamado' (opens a status in the ticket), further clarified by '(inicia cronômetro/status)' (starts timer/status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_status or transfer_ticket.
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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Consulte status do departamento antes' (consult department status before), which implies the intended workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.