Server has 5 tools with basic naming and descriptions, but critical gaps in schema documentation, parameter descriptions, and error handling. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (get_ticket, add_comment, escalate_ticket, close_ticket, delete_ticket), which is good. However, descriptions are minimal (10-50 chars), parameter descriptions are sparse or missing, and output schemas are not documented. No error recovery guidance. Destructive tools (close_ticket, delete_ticket) lack confirmation/dry-run patterns. Risk levels are declared in code but not exposed to the LLM via tool annotations.

• Add explicit output schema documentation for each tool. Example: get_ticket returns {ticket_id: string, status: string, comments: array, subject: string}.
• Expand parameter descriptions with format constraints. Change 'The ticket identifier' to 'Ticket ID in format T-NNN (e.g., T-100). Must exist in system.'
• Implement confirmation pattern for destructive tools: add a 'confirm' boolean parameter or a separate 'confirm_close_ticket' tool that requires explicit user approval.
• Add error recovery hints to all error responses. Example: {'error': 'not found', 'hint': 'Call list_tickets() to find valid ticket IDs.'}
• Expose risk levels via tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) so LLM knows which tools are safe to retry and which require user confirmation.