save_request_draftSaves an unsent public reply draft for a ServiceDesk Plus request without sending it, so technicians can review or edit before posting.
Save an unsent public reply draft. It never sends the message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| bcc | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important non-obvious trait – the draft is never sent – but says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing draft, permission requirements, or what is returned.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the critical non-send constraint is placed immediately after the purpose. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification given the tool's complexity.
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?
A 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation needs substantially more than two sentences. The description leaves permission requirements, draft-overwrite semantics, and the meaning of several required parameters unaddressed.
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?
Seven parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Names like to/cc/bcc/subject are somewhat self-evident, but required fields such as type and description are ambiguous with no guidance in either the schema or the description.
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 gives a specific verb plus resource: 'Save an unsent public reply draft,' which is far more precise than the tool name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as create_request or any send-reply tool, leaving the boundary to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer 'use this when you want to prepare a reply without dispatching it.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative (e.g., a send tool) for the case where the message should actually go out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.