merge_tickets

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well: it states that source tickets are linked as duplicates (link_type=2), that follow-ups are copied conditionally, and that source tickets are closed with an explanatory follow-up. It also clarifies that the target ticket remains open. Missing details like reversibility or permission requirements, but the core actions are explicitly disclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by bullet points of the tool's actions, then a parameter list. It is front-loaded, uses concise language, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (4 params, conditional behaviors) and the lack of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, parameter semantics, and conditional outcomes. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. There are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The description explains all four parameters beyond the schema, providing meaningful context: target_ticket_id is 'the one that stays open', source_ticket_ids are the tickets to merge, and the boolean flags are explained with their conditions (e.g., 'copier les suivis... si add_followups=True'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fusionne un ou plusieurs tickets source vers un ticket cible' (merges one or more source tickets into a target ticket). It clearly distinguishes the merge operation from mere linking by detailing the side effects (linking as duplicates, copying follow-ups, closing source tickets). This differentiates it from sibling tools like link_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 implies usage for merging duplicate tickets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., link_tickets). It provides no exclusions or known alternative recommendations. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but there is no explicit guidance about when this tool should be preferred.

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