Create ITSM Ticket

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: it states 'Idempotent per finding' while the idempotentHint is false. This is a serious inconsistency, making the description untrustworthy about behavioral traits. Even though it discloses auth source and required scope, the contradiction nullifies 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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the connection mechanism, required scope, and idempotency. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 10 parameters and an output schema, the description gives helpful context about the stored connection, admin scope, and idempotency claim. However, the idempotency contradiction undermines reliability, and it does not describe side effects beyond the annotation's destructiveHint. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema has 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; mentions of connection and idempotency are already covered in parameter descriptions (connection_id, finding_id). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'File an ITSM ticket for a finding through a stored connection.' It uses specific verb 'file' and distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like sync_ticket_status, which suggests an update operation. The title and description align.

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 clear context by noting the tool requires an admin operator and the 'ticketing:write' scope, and that auth/base URL come from the stored connection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not guidance, but the purpose of creating a ticket is clearly implied.

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