send_support_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It tags '[mutation]' and states it sends a message, indicating a write operation. However, it does not disclose what happens after sending (e.g., confirmation, ticket ID) or any side effects. Given the simplicity, it is marginally adequate.

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 two sentences plus a mutation marker, extremely concise. It front-loads the purpose and provides usage context without any 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 tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but could mention expected outcomes or that no output is returned. With no output schema and no annotations, it leaves some gaps, but the core functionality is clear.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond highlighting the type enum values (bug, question, etc.). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: sending a support ticket to the WAzion team. The verb 'Enviar' (send) and resource 'ticket de soporte' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on contacting support for unresolved issues.

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 explicitly lists when to use: when the user has a problem the AI can't solve, wants to report a bug, or needs technical help. While it doesn't state when not to use, the positive conditions are clear and imply the context for this tool.

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