nexo_support_ticket_reopen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'reopen' which implies a state change, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to the ticket's history. The description lacks transparency about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 one sentence with no fluff, starting with the action verb. It is concise but could benefit from a brief mention of the parameter; nonetheless, it earns its place by providing the core purpose without waste.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool confidently. It does not describe return values, success/failure conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., the ticket must exist and be closed). The tool is more complex than the description suggests.

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 schema has one required parameter 'ticket_id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose solely from the name. With low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's role, but it fails to do so.

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 reopens a NEXO support ticket, using a specific verb and resource. It adds a condition ('if fresh evidence shows it is active') that slightly distinguishes it from similar tools like create or close, though the exact meaning of 'reopen' could be more explicit.

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 phrase 'if fresh evidence shows it is active' gives some guidance on when to use the tool, implying it should only be used when new activity justifies reopening. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like nexo_support_ticket_close or nexo_support_ticket_create, nor does it state when not to use it.

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