submit_support_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal two significant traits: acceptance is durable and delivery is asynchronous, which tells the agent this is not a synchronous end-to-end call. However, it does not disclose idempotency behavior, failure semantics, or what the returned output represents, which are material for a tool that requires an idempotency_key.

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 with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the core action, the durability guarantee, and the asynchronous nature of delivery are all packed into one concise, front-loaded statement.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, 0% schema parameter coverage, and a sibling tool for status retrieval, this description is too sparse. It does not explain how idempotency_key should be used, what the expected response is, or how get_delivery_status relates to the asynchronous workflow. An agent can infer the basic action but not the full invocation contract.

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%, and the description does not compensate: subject and description are self-explanatory, but idempotency_key's semantics, required format, and expected reuse behavior are entirely unexplained. The agent is left to guess the purpose of a required parameter that is central to correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('accept') with a clear resource ('support ticket') and adds meaningful qualifiers: 'durably' and 'asynchronous downstream delivery.' This makes the tool's submission-focused role distinct from the sibling get_delivery_status, which is clearly about checking status.

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 when to use the tool—when submitting a support ticket—and the asynchronous wording hints at a later status check, but it never explicitly references the sibling get_delivery_status or states when not to use this tool. The routing between submit and status-check is left to inference.

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