Capture an external request as a ticket

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

The description discloses that it uses heuristics similar to validate_feedback, labels the request as ask:<source>, and records the requester. Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, etc.), so the description adds some behavioral context but does not fully explain side effects or creation process.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the action and important characteristics. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, and the structure is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns after structuring a request (e.g., ticket ID, confirmation). Given the complexity of creating a ticket, this is a significant gap in 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaningful context: 'source' becomes part of the label, and 'from' is recorded in the description header. This goes beyond the schema descriptions for those parameters, though 'project' remains unexplained.

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 structures pasted external requests into features or bugs using heuristics, specifying input types (Slack message, email) and output labeling (ask:<source>). It distinguishes itself from a live intake listener.

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 says 'paste-to-structure, not a live intake listener,' which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like validate_feedback or other intake tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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