Apply a macro to a ticket

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and potential side effects (openWorldHint true). The description adds useful context: it 'persists the resulting changes' and 'returns the changes applied and the updated ticket', which clarifies behavior beyond the annotations.

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, front-loading the core purpose and effect, followed by a usage hint and caution. Every sentence contributes meaning without 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 the simple parameter set (2 simple strings), no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how to get the macro ID, and the caution about modifying the ticket. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters having clear schema descriptions. The description adds minimal new semantic value by referencing zendesk_list_macros for macroId, but this is not a parameter-level detail. Baseline of 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 action ('apply a macro'), the resource ('to a ticket'), and the effect ('persist the resulting changes'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool zendesk_list_macros by explicitly referencing it for obtaining the macro ID.

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 provides clear context: it tells the user to get a macro ID from zendesk_list_macros and advises to confirm with the user because it modifies the ticket. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like zendesk_update_ticket, but the action is specific enough.

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