Создать обращение в поддержку

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a ticket (write operation) and implies routing, but does not mention authentication, side effects, or the response structure. This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, including a concrete example and practical advice. No fluff or redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and the action's nature, the description covers the main parameters but omits expected response details and prerequisites (e.g., authentication). It's adequate for a simple action but not exhaustive.

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 100% and already describes all three parameters, but the description adds meaningful layers: it explains the purpose of category (routing) and advises on what to include in description (transaction/terminal IDs). This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool 'opens a new WATA support ticket', a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling actions like wata_support_ticket_get and wata_support_ticket_reply by focusing on creation, and even gives a concrete category example.

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 explains that category determines routing, provides a concrete example (MissingTransaction), and advises including transaction and terminal identifiers for faster resolution. This gives context but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or contrast with reply/get alternatives.

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