create_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'WRITES DATA' and '[writes data]', which reveals that this is a mutating operation. It also adds a safety guideline about only calling after explicit user intent. However, it does not describe side effects beyond ticket creation (e.g., whether existing data is modified, whether permissions are required, or whether the operation is idempotent). For a write operation with no annotation coverage, this is moderate 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 main purpose is front-loaded and stated in one sentence. The JSON arguments block is long but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. However, there is slight redundancy: 'WRITES DATA' and '[writes data]' convey the same information. Overall, the structure is clear and organized, with the usage guideline placed prominently.

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?

For a create operation, the description covers the essential context: when to call, what it does, and how to structure arguments. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here. It falls short of 5 because it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the account must be valid) or expected behavior on failure, but these are not critical for a simple ticket creation flow.

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 0%, but the description provides a complete parameter breakdown: account_id with pattern and example, subject with length constraints, and priority with an enum and default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the minimal input schema, which only shows a generic 'arguments' object. The agent can correctly construct a call without external documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Open a support ticket for an account.' It clearly indicates a create operation, and the explicit 'WRITES DATA' marker removes any ambiguity about its effect. Among siblings like get_deal, list_deals, list_open_tickets, and update_deal_stage, none compete with this create action, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'only call when the user explicitly asked to create a ticket.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool and implicitly when not to. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but since none of the siblings perform ticket creation, the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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