Affecter un ticket

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions notification and plugin requirement, but does not address side effects (e.g., overwriting existing assignment) or error handling for invalid IDs.

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?

Three sentences, each adding critical information: main action, parameter usage, notification behavior, and plugin prerequisite. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior, exclusivity, and prerequisites. It could mention the return value or state change, but is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining exclusivity of technician_id and group_id, and cross-referencing the list tool for obtaining IDs.

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 action: assigning a ticket to a technician or group. It specifies the two exclusive options (technician_id or group_id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, close, or comment.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on providing either technician_id or group_id, and references another tool (gestsup_list_referential) to obtain valid IDs. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare with other assignment methods.

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