Create ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It states the return value (id) and warns about rejection of unknown ticket_fields versus silent ignoring of action_arguments, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if it requires authentication, or if there are rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 at two sentences, immediately stating the core purpose. It front-loads the primary behavior and return value, then adds parameter notes. One minor improvement could be to structure the parameter notes more clearly, but overall it is efficient.

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 has 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers only a subset of parameters (text, ticket_fields, action_arguments) and lacks details on attachments, owner_guid, and html_content. The presence of an output schema helps but does not fully compensate for missing parameter explanations.

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 explains the critical `text` parameter and adds meaning to `ticket_fields` and `action_arguments` by noting their optionality and server behavior. However, `owner_guid`, `attachments`, and `html_content` are not described, leaving some parameters without context.

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 creates a new ticket and returns its ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_tickets, get_ticket, and apply_ticket_action by focusing on creation, not retrieval or modification.

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 mentions that `ticket_fields` and `action_arguments` are optional and only for advanced cases, and notes that unknown fields are rejected while unknown arguments are ignored. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_ticket_action, or when attachments or html_content should be used.

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