itsm_embed_receipt

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

There are no annotations to provide safety or side-effect context, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'embed' without disclosing that this modifies an existing ticket, any required permissions, reversibility, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It conveys the essential action, resource, and target efficiently.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only offers a high-level action. It fails to explain how the receipt is embedded, whether the ticket body is replaced or appended, what success/failure looks like, or any other behavioral context needed 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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the receipt is SHA-256, but it does not explain the distinction between receipt_id and receipt_hash or when to provide each, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Embed' and identifies both the resource ('ProofLink SHA-256 receipt') and the target ('existing ITSM ticket body'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like itsm_verify_receipt or itsm_create_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit use cases beyond the basic action, and sibling verification tools are not referenced.

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