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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is met from structured data, but the description goes well beyond: it explains partial-update semantics (omitted fields stay unchanged), the destructive null-clearing behavior for assignee/dates/repository, optimistic concurrency handling, and side effects (column moves may notify reporters, assignment/repository changes may start an agent). These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before mutating.

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?

Sentences are short, front-loaded with the core action, and each one carries distinct information — partial-update rule, concurrency token, permission, idempotency, side effects, unsupported uploads. There is no repetition or filler despite the density.

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 13-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations beyond hints and no output schema, the description covers the risky parts well: permissions, conflict recovery, clearing semantics, and downstream notifications. Minor gaps remain around how position and columnId interact for reordering and what state the ticket is left in after an update.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the description has to carry the load. It usefully explains null-clearing for assignee/agentRepositoryId/dates, the provenance of expectedUpdatedAt, and requestId idempotency semantics, but title, description, priority (the sole enum), position, cardId, and projectId get no semantic elaboration beyond their types and constraints.

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?

"Edit ticket fields, move its status/column or reorder it" names a specific verb, resource, and the three distinct mutation modes. It also names the exact alternative route for file attachment (the everframe CLI) and points at get_ticket for the concurrency token, so an agent can distinguish this from update_ticket_comment, create_ticket, and get_ticket without opening a schema.

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?

It states explicit prerequisites (tickets:write), a required upstream call (fetch expectedUpdatedAt from get_ticket), a conditional recovery path (ticket_conflict means re-read before editing), and an idempotency rule (reuse requestId only for an identical retry). It also carves out a when-not case: uploads are unsupported, use the CLI instead.

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