kitty.ticket.update_description

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the update overwrites the existing description. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap, similar to the mid-tier update example in the calibration.

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, direct sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation and is fully front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin to be contextually complete. It omits any information about return values, behavior on failure, or why an agent might choose this tool over others. While the name and schema provide basic context, an agent would be unsure about the full effects and prerequisites of invoking this tool.

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?

The input schema already describes 2 of 3 parameters (projectSlug and ticketId) with clear names and descriptions, and the third parameter (description) is self-explanatory with a maxLength constraint. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema coverage is sufficient (67%) and the missing description is obvious, so it does not require compensation.

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 'Update a ticket's description' uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('ticket's description'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_comment, set_priority, or move_status. It directly matches the tool name and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool (e.g., add_comment or create_subtask) would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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