Create ticket

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about acting on behalf of a client and gives example scenarios, going beyond the structured annotations. It does not disclose possible side effects like notifications, but this is not expected for a basic create action.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action, includes a parenthetical with examples, and contains no redundant information.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose and context. Combined with the well-documented schema and annotations, it provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It doesn't mention the response format, but that is not critical for selection.

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 high (86%), and the schema already contains descriptions for most parameters. The description's phrase 'on behalf of a client' implicitly references client_id, but it adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Open a new support ticket' and the resource (support ticket), and adds the 'on behalf of a client' scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like reply_ticket and list_tickets.

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 contextual use cases ('document a phone call or start an outbound conversation') and clarifies the actor ('on behalf of a client'). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the examples imply the appropriate scenarios.

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