wata_support_ticket_replyAdds a comment to a support ticket on behalf of the merchant, automatically handling the multipart/form-data submission required by the payment system.
Добавляет комментарий в обращение поддержки от имени мерчанта. Кабинет принимает этот запрос как multipart/form-data, а не как JSON — инструмент собирает нужную форму сам.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Идентификатор тикета | |
| text | Yes | Текст комментария |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 an important behavioral trait: the cabinet expects multipart/form-data and the tool assembles the form itself. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or the nature of the response (success/failure), leaving gaps for a write operation.
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 that front-loads the purpose and includes a key implementation detail (multipart/form-data). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary filler.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the unusual encoding behavior. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, it is reasonably complete for an agent to call it 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 100%, so both parameters (id and text) are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it clarifies that 'text' is a comment, but that is already implied by the tool name and schema. It doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb ('adds a comment') and resource ('support ticket'), and specifies the actor ('on behalf of the merchant'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ticket creation or marking as read by its focus on adding a comment.
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 it (to reply to an existing ticket) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from related tools like wata_support_ticket_create. The verb 'reply' makes the intent clear, but there's no explicit routing to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.