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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: only provided fields are changed, preventing accidental overwrite of unmentioned fields. The REST endpoint reference also provides implementation context. 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by compact enum mappings and endpoint. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff.

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?

With 13 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and update semantics but does not mention return values or error behavior. The schema handles parameter details, but for a destructive, complex operation, some indication of response expectations would improve completeness.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats enum values for status and priority already present in the schema, adding no extra semantic value beyond what structured fields already provide.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Update fields on an existing ticket' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_ticket or update_contact. Including the REST endpoint further clarifies the exact operation.

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 phrase 'existing ticket' and 'Only provided fields are changed' gives clear context for partial updates, implying this tool is for modifying existing tickets rather than creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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