create_ticket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral details like side effects (e.g., notifications, response format) beyond the action itself. It doesn't contradict annotations but also doesn't enrich them.

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 sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter clarifications are given in the second sentence. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 all required parameters implicitly (subject, message, department_id are not explained but are obvious) and explains the ambiguous ones (priority, vps_id). It doesn't mention how to obtain department_id, but the sibling list_ticket_departments provides that context. Adequate for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains priority values and vps_id's purpose (linking to a VPS from list_vps), but does not explain department_id, which is required. Subject and message are self-explanatory. Partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Open a new support ticket with an opening message,' a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tickets and reply_to_ticket. It also mentions optional VPS linking, further clarifying its unique role.

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 implies usage for opening a new ticket, which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, but the purpose is so distinct among siblings that the context is clear. No exclusions are stated, but none are needed.

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