Créer un ticket (complet)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that creation can be refused with missing fields, notifies according to settings, and requires the plugin. However, it does not describe the return value (likely ticket ID), idempotency, or error handling beyond refusal. Partial transparency.

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 a single paragraph of 6 sentences, front-loading the purpose then providing a workflow and rules. It is reasonably concise for the amount of information, though a structured list would improve scannability. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains purpose, usage, and error conditions but lacks information about return values, idempotency, and detailed parameter behavior. It provides a good foundation but leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer or discover.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that IDs must be real (from referential) and that requester can be specified by ID or email. However, it does not describe individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 tool creates a complete ticket and lists the fields. It implies a distinction from a simpler sibling by using 'complet' in the title and recommending this for email/request scenarios, but does not explicitly contrast with gestsup_create_ticket. The purpose is well-defined but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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?

The description provides excellent usage guidelines: recommended when starting from an email/request, a step-by-step workflow (call referential, deduce IDs, confirm with user, create), and important rules like using real IDs and handling refusal. It explicitly names gestsup_list_referential as a preparatory tool and advises against guessing IDs.

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