Créer un ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return values (ID, URL) but omits side effects, required permissions, or potential failure modes (e.g., duplicate detection). Schema covers validation constraints but not behavior.

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?

Very concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly improved by adding the return info upfront, but it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The description covers creation and return values but lacks details on required fields beyond what schema says, and does not address potential prerequisites (e.g., user authentication). For a tool with no output schema, the return description is helpful but incomplete.

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% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra semantic context, but the schema already explains the parameters adequately, including cross-reference for 'type_id'.

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 it creates a support ticket and returns the ID and URL. However, it does not distinguish this tool from 'gestsup_create_ticket_full', which is a sibling tool likely with broader functionality, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gestsup_create_ticket_full' or 'gestsup_update_ticket'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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