Changer l'état d'un ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that setting to 'résolu' records a resolution date, notifies the requester according to GestSup settings, and requires the 'gestsup_mcp' plugin. It does not mention idempotency or other potential side effects.

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 with three sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action. While effective, it could be slightly more structured or broken into bullet points for clarity.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, side effects, and a critical parameter instruction. It lacks information on return values, error handling, or transactional behavior, but is still fairly complete.

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% and parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds critical value by specifying that state_id must be fetched and by explaining the side effect of setting the resolution date, which goes beyond the schema.

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 'Change' and the resource 'l'état d'un ticket' with examples. It distinguishes the tool as a generic state changer, but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like gestsup_close_ticket which might be a specific case.

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 instructs the agent to fetch the state ID via gestsup_list_referential and not guess it, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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