Create an internal record (応対メモ)

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

No annotations exist. The description mentions visibility (internal-only) but does not disclose other behaviors such as required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It adds moderate context beyond the schema.

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 with two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with key information. Every word carries value.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves gaps. It does not explain parameter dependencies (e.g., ticket must exist), optionality, or return value. The use cases are helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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 50% (body and operator_id have descriptions). The tool description adds no further details about parameters such as message_box_id, subject, or duration, failing to compensate 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 clearly states the tool creates an internal record on a ticket, and specifies its internal visibility (only support team, not end customer). This effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'create_comment', which presumably is customer-facing.

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 use cases: 'triage notes, investigation context, or handoff messages.' While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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