sapiens_support

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses authentication via sessionToken, enforced per-user scope, the PII-leak rationale, that replies re-open closed tickets, and which operations are server-side. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=true.

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 dense but not wasteful. Scope and security are front-loaded, the sub-actions are compressed into one readable list, and the outside-of-MCP note prevents misuse without extra sentences.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers return values (ticketId, message history, status/data), input constraints, authentication identity, and unsupported operations. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 high (83%), but the description adds essential conditional semantics: subject is mandatory for create, message/whatsapp are optional, ticketId comes from list, and content is the reply text. It resolves the action-dependent parameter meanings that the flat schema alone cannot express.

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 names the resource (support tickets), the actor scope (the user's own tickets only), and enumerates the four sub-actions. This makes it easy to distinguish from the content-oriented sibling tools.

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?

Each sub-action has explicit triggers and expected results, and the description clearly states what is not possible ('Fechar/escalar/deletar ficam no lado do suporte, fora do MCP'). It also strictly warns against touching other people's tickets, giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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