Update Luma ticket type

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it requires explicit user confirmation before updating and explains that nullable fields clear their current value. This complements the annotations, which already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation.

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 sentences with no fluff, and the key behaviors are front-loaded: partial update, explicit confirmation, and null-clearing semantics. Every sentence contributes essential 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 mutation tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is lean. It captures core update semantics but does not describe the response format, error conditions, or constraints related to parameters such as cents/currency pairing, leaving some context for an agent to infer.

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?

With only 7% schema description coverage, the description carries important parameter semantics: 'Nullable fields clear their current value' explains the behavior of nullable parameters, and 'Update selected fields' implies omitted fields remain unchanged. It does not document every parameter individually, but it covers the most consequential update semantics.

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 action is 'Update' and the resource is a 'ticket type', which distinguishes it from create/delete/get ticket type tools. It specifies that only selected fields are updated, further clarifying its partial-update purpose, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 'after explicit confirmation' provides a clear prerequisite for when this tool may be invoked, and 'update selected fields' implies it is for modifying an existing ticket type rather than creating one. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the invocation condition is concrete.

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