ds_use_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses session scoping ('same caller'), the forward-looking effect on subsequent operations, that AVU writes get a via_ticket value in DuckLake, and that other callers are unaffected. It omits error/expiry behavior for invalid tickets and whether the ticket can be cleared, so not fully complete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its scoping consequence lead, and the side-effect detail follows. Every clause 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?

For a session-state mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, and non-interference with other callers. It stops short of covering failure modes (invalid/expired ticket) or removal, leaving a small but real gap.

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%, so the single 'ticket' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only that it is 'supplied' to the session rather than any format, sourcing, or validity detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Supply an iRODS ticket to the caller's iRODS session'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ds_create_ticket, ds_modify_ticket, and ds_get_ticket_info. The description could be sharper about what 'supply' changes, but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 implies usage via 'subsequent operations by the same caller run with the ticket applied,' which tells the agent this affects later calls in the session. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of needing a ticket from ds_create_ticket first, and no stated alternatives.

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