memory_submit_ticket

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

The description discloses the concrete actions (creating a report in tickets/review/ and moving the ticket to review status), which is useful since annotations are all false. However, it omits the key default behavior of auto-handing off unless stay_active is true, a significant side effect.

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?

It's a short, front-loaded description with no redundant content. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and workflow.

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 tool with six nested parameters and no explanation of its required inputs, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention that ticket_id, agent_name, and summary are required, nor the stay_active auto-handoff behavior.

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 0% per context signals, and the description makes no mention of any parameter names, meanings, or required fields. The schema itself provides some descriptions, but the tool description adds no parameter guidance.

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 'Submit completed work on a ticket for review,' which is a specific verb+resource+outcome. It also explains it creates a submission report and moves the ticket to review status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_create_ticket or memory_review_ticket.

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?

It clearly situates when to use: after work is completed, to hand off for review by another agent. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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