Transfer a support ticket to another department or operator by providing the ticket ID. Redirect tickets to the appropriate team or agent for resolution.
ATENCAO: altera producao. Transfere o chamado entre departamentos e/ou atendentes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | Identificador do chamado (ticket_id). | |
| operator_id | No | ||
| department_id | No |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does include a production-change warning ('ATENCAO: altera producao'), which is useful context. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing assignments when transferring.
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, with only two sentences: a production warning and the core action. Every part earns its place and the main behavior is front-loaded.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description leaves important gaps. An agent does not know how operator_id and department_id interact, whether a transfer can target only one or both, or what a successful transfer returns. The description is adequate for recognizing the tool but not fully complete for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for operator_id and department_id. It partially does by saying the transfer can happen 'entre departamentos e/ou atendentes', which maps those parameters to departments and attendants. But it does not clarify whether one or both are required, whether they are mutually exclusive, or the expected value formats.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Transfere o chamado' (transfers the ticket) and names the targets 'entre departamentos e/ou atendentes'. This distinguishes it from most siblings like reply, finish, or create, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with tomticket_assign_operator.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what the tool does, not when it should be chosen, when it should not be used, or what prerequisites exist. The intended use is merely implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.