request_sales_assistance

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

Annotations convey that the operation is not read-only and is open-world. The description adds that this creates a Jira/request_assistance ticket and that details belong in 'message', but it does not disclose side effects or whether the request is immediately acted upon.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The first part states the tool's purpose and the second gives a clear instruction about the main parameter.

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 ticket-submission tool, the description covers the core scenario and message requirement. However, it does not mention the required 'confirm' flag, expected behavior after submission, or what response the caller should expect.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that details should go in 'message' and adds no new parameter meaning beyond 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 clearly identifies the tool as a ticket to the sales department for cancellations, service transfers, and similar requests. It names the concrete purpose and resource, although it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling request_cancellation.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'отмена или перенос услуги и подобные запросы'. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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