open_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful hint that the operation is 'internal and reversible' and 'executes directly', implying it is safe to run without confirmation. However, it doesn't explain side effects, permission requirements, or what 'internal' means, so transparency is partial.

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 concise—two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a behavioral note, which is efficient. However, it is perhaps too terse, missing useful details, but it earns points for being well-structured and free of fluff.

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 tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description lacks essential context: what inputs are expected, what the output looks like, and any relationship to sibling tools like find_customer. It doesn't explain how to obtain a customer_id or what 'site' refers to, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it 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?

The description does not mention any parameters, and schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema titles are the only clue. With two required parameters (customer_id and title) and an optional site, the agent has no explanation of their meanings or how to construct values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Open' and the resource 'service ticket', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prepare_invoice or customer_tickets by its unique action and object, so an agent can immediately understand its core 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. For example, it doesn't mention that a customer must exist or that find_customer might be needed first. The description gives no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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