itsm_create_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states two non-obvious behaviors: 'Assigns priority based on severity' and 'Returns ticket ID.' This goes beyond the obvious 'creates a ticket' and provides useful context about internal logic and output. However, it doesn't mention side effects like notifications or permissions, but for a create tool, the described behaviors are significant.

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 two well-structured sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second provides behavioral and output details. There is no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, and return value. It is not overly rich, but it provides enough for a straightforward create operation. The lack of usage alternatives is a minor gap, but overall it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic meaning by linking 'severity' to priority assignment, which is not fully captured in the schema. This helps the agent understand how the severity parameter influences the outcome.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an ITSM ticket for an incident.' It also distinguishes from siblings like itsm_get_ticket and itsm_close_ticket by focusing on creation. The additional details about priority assignment and returning a ticket ID reinforce the unique function.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to create a ticket for an incident. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'for an incident' helps the agent understand the intended scenario. No competing create-ticket sibling exists, so the usage is fairly clear.

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