hostodo_close_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool is a stub, does not perform the action, returns a coming_soon response, and warns not to send secrets. This sufficiently discloses the behavioral traits for a placeholder tool.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence introduces the tool, the second explains its stub nature, and the third warns about secrets. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details.

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 stub tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose, behavior, and a security note. It provides enough context for an AI agent to understand its limited functionality, though it does not detail the response format.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the intended future action ('Close a support ticket') and explicitly clarifies that it is a stub that records demand and does not perform the action. This provides a clear purpose despite the placeholder nature.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hostodo_create_ticket or hostodo_reply_ticket. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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