save_ticket_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the approval gate and the persistence backend, but omits what happens when approved=false (no-op vs. error), permission requirements, and whether saving a draft is idempotent or overwrites an existing draft.

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 gating condition is stated as part of the core purpose rather than buried.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, a required nested-object parameter, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin — an agent knows the gate but not the ticket payload shape or failure behavior. The existing output schema removes the need to explain return values, but that alone doesn't close the 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 coverage is 0% and one parameter, ticket, is an unconstrained object (additionalProperties: true) with no description anywhere — the description does not hint at what fields a valid ticket must contain. It only clarifies approved's effect, meaning the more complex required parameter remains entirely undocumented.

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 (persist), resource (a draft), and storage target (PostgreSQL), which no sibling tool overlaps with — all siblings are read/inspection tools. An agent can immediately tell this is the sole write path for drafts.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: persist only when the caller passes approved=true, which effectively tells the agent when this tool will act. It stops short of naming alternatives or describing what to do instead when approved is false (skip the call? use another tool?).

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