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 discloses updatable fields and valid values for status and priority, but does not specify whether omitted fields remain unchanged (partial update), the return value, or required permissions. These are notable gaps 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 concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list. Each line provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is functional but incomplete. It lacks explicit statement about partial update behavior, error handling, or response contents. Sibling tools are not referenced. Overall adequate with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all four parameters with meaningful semantics: ticket_id as the ID, status and priority with enumerated valid values, and description as the new text. This significantly exceeds the schema's simple string definitions.

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 states 'Update an existing customer support ticket' with a clear verb and resource, and the scope is specific to updating, making it distinct from sibling tools like create_ticket, get_ticket, and search_tickets.

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 the tool—when an existing ticket needs modification—but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear enough for a simple update tool, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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