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

Annotations already disclose non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: cost ($0.01 per call, free on failure), the side effect that resolving may email a satisfaction survey, how ask_rating overrides per call, what 'pending' means operationally, that priority affects SLA targets, and that 0 unlinks CRM associations.

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 a dense but waste-free paragraph, front-loaded with 'Change a ticket' and then listing fields. Every clause adds useful behavioral or semantic detail, though the run-on structure could be more scannable.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral side effects (survey email, cost) and parameter semantics well. It omits some detail such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, permission requirements, and error behavior, but remains largely complete for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains enum semantics for status (pending = waiting on customer) and priority (SLA targets follow), clarifies assign_to accepted values ('me', another bot's name, '' for nobody), contact/company unlinking with 0, and ask_rating behavior. It adds little for category, subject, or number, but overall meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 (change) and resource (a ticket), then enumerates exactly which ticket fields can be changed (status, priority, category, subject, tags, custom fields, assignee, CRM contact/company). This clearly scopes it apart from siblings like ticket_get, ticket_list, ticket_create, and ticket_update_settings.

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 implies when to use it (to change ticket fields) and adds context such as cost and survey behavior, but it never explicitly names alternatives or when not to use it. An agent can infer usage but receives no explicit routing guidance against ticket_reply, ticket_get, or ticket_update_settings.

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