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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; there is no readOnlyHint, so the description must explain that this is a partial mutation. It does not say whether unspecified fields are left untouched, what resolving implies (closure, notifications, required outcome), or what the response contains. Nothing is contradicted, but nothing is added either.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource is named immediately. It is appropriately sized, though the compact field enumeration is what introduces the inaccuracy rather than protecting against it.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition should cover the resolve/outcome_id coupling, partial-update semantics, and the mismatch between claimed and actual fields. As written it leaves the agent unable to tell whether 'status' or 'priority' can be set at all, and gives no sense of the result of a successful 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description actively misleads: it advertises status, priority, and queue parameters that do not exist, while never mentioning the actual 'resolve'/'outcome_id' pairing or the required purpose field. An agent trusting the description would look for parameters that aren't there.

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 (updates) and resource (SautiDesk ticket), which clearly separates it from siblings like desk_update_task, desk_update_contact, and desk_create_ticket. The enumerated field list, however, names 'status', 'priority', and 'queue', none of which exist as parameters in the schema, so the stated purpose is partly inaccurate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus desk_get_ticket, desk_add_ticket_comment, or desk_set_activity_outcome, and no mention of prerequisites or the fact that one field should be supplied per call. The only usage hint on the whole tool ('only with resolve') lives in the schema, not the description.

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