move_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the primary action without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, validation rules, or what happens on success/failure. This is a mutation operation with zero behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately names the action and object, then adds a clarifying parenthetical. Perfectly sized for the information it conveys.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain expected outcomes, errors, or constraints. It is too sparse: an agent cannot predict success criteria, side effects, or validation behavior. The simple parameter schema does not compensate for this missing context.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that 'bin' refers to a 'workflow stage', providing semantic context beyond the schema's 'Target bin name or ID'. This helps the agent understand the meaning of the parameter in domain terms.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'ticket' with a specific destination ('different bin'), clarifying the domain concept 'bin' as 'workflow stage'. This distinguishes it from sibling update/delete/list operations.

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 implies when to use it (when changing a ticket's workflow stage) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where it should not be used. It does not name sibling tools that might be more appropriate for other ticket modifications.

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