create_support_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only notes the auth requirement ('requires ticket:write') but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the obvious creation 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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. While it is not verbose, it is barely adequate and could benefit from additional context without becoming unwieldy. It is front-loaded with the core action but lacks structure.

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 parameters, no nested objects, presence of output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the result of creating a ticket, how parameters interact, or any required order of operations, leaving an agent with insufficient context to use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description offers no explanation of the parameters. The input schema provides names and types but lacks descriptions, and the tool description adds no additional semantic meaning to help an agent correctly populate the subject, priority, customer_id, or description fields.

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 states 'Create a customer support ticket,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like process_order and update_inventory, which serve different purposes.

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 mentions the required permission 'ticket:write,' providing context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, missing an opportunity to clarify when other tools might be more appropriate.

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