add_reply

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, covering the mutation/safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond the annotation — the reply is visible to the requestor — signaling an outward-facing side effect. It does not disclose return semantics or irreversibility, but the schema's CustomFields caveat covers a key failure mode. No contradiction with 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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero filler. The parenthetical '(correspondence)' and 'visible to the requestor' both earn their place by disambiguating the tool's intent, and the key scoping fact is front-loaded.

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?

The detailed schema and destructiveHint annotation carry most of the burden for this 7-parameter, nested-object tool. The main gaps are that there is no output schema and the description never says what a successful call returns (e.g., reply/transaction ID), and the reply-versus-comment distinction is left implicit. Adequate given schema richness, but the description alone would not fully complete the picture.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the tool description contributes no parameter detail. The schema itself is unusually rich, explaining CustomFields replacement semantics and silent RT failures plus Attachments FilePath vs FileContent encoding, so it fully carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('Send'), resource ('a reply on a ticket'), and a scoping qualifier ('visible to the requestor') that carves out the customer-facing correspondence use case. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling add_comment but never names or explicitly contrasts it, so differentiation is not fully 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 'visible to the requestor' qualifier provides context implying this tool is chosen when the message must be customer-facing rather than internal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the direct sibling add_comment is never mentioned as the alternative for non-visible notes.

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