update_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'update' but does not disclose whether the update is a partial merge or full replacement, whether fields can be cleared, or any side effects or permission requirements. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It wastes no words, but the inaccuracy with 'assignee' slightly detracts from its effectiveness.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, a nested custom_fields object, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description omits key fields (subject, group_id, description, type, responder_id) and fails to explain how these fields relate to each other or to ticket updates. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool in many scenarios.

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 10% (only ticket_id has a description). The description lists some field categories but does not explain value constraints (e.g., status range 2-5, priority range 1-4) or clarify that 'assignee' corresponds to responder_id. It adds only superficial meaning.

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 clearly states the tool updates ticket fields and enumerates several examples (status, priority, tags, custom fields). However, it mentions 'assignee' which does not directly match the schema's 'responder_id', creating minor ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ticket or delete_ticket. The description implies an existing ticket must be referenced but does not state prerequisites or scenarios.

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