memory_claim_ticket

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

The description directly contradicts the idempotentHint annotation. It states that calling again on a claimed ticket advances to in_progress, meaning repeated calls have different effects, violating idempotency. No other behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, permissions) are provided.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. It conveys the primary behavior and an important nuance (second call advances state) without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete. The contradiction with idempotency is a critical gap, and the description does not clarify edge cases (e.g., what happens if the ticket is already in_progress). Missing parameter guidance also reduces completeness.

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 provides no explanation for the parameters ticket_id and agent_name. The input schema only describes ticket_id as 'Ticket ID to claim', while agent_name has no description. With 0% schema description coverage from the tool description, the agent is left without guidance on what these parameters mean or how to format them.

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's purpose: claiming an open ticket, with a specific verb ('Claim') and resource ('ticket'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling ticket tools (create, cancel, submit, etc.) by detailing the state transition behavior. The added note about advancing to in_progress on a second call further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: claim an open ticket, and recall it on a claimed ticket to advance to in_progress, e.g., when spawning a subagent. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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