tdx-ticket-create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new TDX ticket' implies a write operation, but it doesn't mention required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with 15 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Create a new TDX ticket' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a TDX ticket is, what the tool returns, error handling, or dependencies. For a mutation tool with many parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use beyond the basic schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying ticket creation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps (there are none in this case).

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 'Create a new TDX ticket' clearly states the action (create) and resource (TDX ticket), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tdx-project-create' or 'tdx-kb-create' that also create different TDX entities. It lacks specificity about what makes a ticket distinct from other TDX objects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'tdx-ticket-patch' and 'tdx-ticket-update' for modifying tickets, and 'tdx-ticket-search' for finding tickets, the description offers no context on prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions between creation and update operations.

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