Apply ticket action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that this tool changes the ticket, which is a behavioral disclosure. It also mentions that actions vary per ticket/user/state, implying context-dependence. However, it does not detail side effects like whether steps are immutable or if there are irreversible actions, but given the existence of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 three sentences, each with a purpose. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds a crucial prerequisite warning, and concludes with a safety note. No wasted words. The structure is ideal for an MCP description.

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 (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description provides essential usage guidance. The presence of an output schema helps with return value understanding. The main gap is the lack of parameter explanations, but the tool's purpose and behavior are sufficiently outlined for an agent to understand when and how to use it, particularly with the hint to list actions first.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'text', 'attachments', 'step_fields', etc. only indirectly by saying 'answering, closing, escalating', but does not explain specific parameters like 'action_arguments' or 'ticket_fields'. The description adds context for action_id and ticket_id (validity and prerequisite), but for other parameters it relies on the schema which has no descriptions. Since 8 parameters that are mostly undocumented, the description could do more to explain how to use them.

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's purpose: 'Apply a ticket action to an existing ticket - answering, closing, escalating and so on - and return the id of the new editing step.' It uses specific verbs (apply, return) and names the resource (ticket). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on actions, while siblings like list_ticket_actions and get_ticket handle listing and retrieval.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call list_ticket_actions first: only the ids listed there are valid, and they differ per ticket, user and state.' This tells the agent the prerequisite step and warns about validity constraints. It also says to confirm with the user when intent is ambiguous, which is excellent for ambiguous situations.

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