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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the destructive behavior is made concrete ('Changing the client clears the ticket's contact and assets'), and side effects are disclosed ('Each change notifies and logs as in the app'). The PATCH endpoint is given, which corroborates the idempotentHint and confirms the partial-update model that destructiveHint alone cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences with the mutation marker and field list front-loaded, followed by the update semantics and the one genuinely dangerous side effect. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers mutation intent, partial-update behavior, side effects and the cascade consequence — enough to call it safely. It stops short of stating what the call returns or any permission/rate-limit requirements, which a write tool of this complexity would ideally include.

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 and does so partially — it lists status, priority, assignee, title and tags, and explains the client_id cascade. It leaves type_id, contact_id and the id-typed fields unexplained, and 'tag_ids' semantics live only in the schema, so coverage remains incomplete.

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?

Opens with 'WRITE: change fields of a ticket' — a specific verb plus resource — and enumerates the mutable fields (status, priority, assignee, title, tags). The write/mutation nature is signposted clearly against a sibling set dominated by get_/list_ tools, though it never names the adjacent create_ticket or add_ticket_comment to draw the boundary.

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?

'Only the fields you send change' communicates partial-update semantics and implies this is the tool for modifying an existing ticket rather than creating one. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so an agent must infer that comments belong to gorelo_add_ticket_comment and new tickets to gorelo_create_ticket.

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