glpi_update_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'updates fields' without explaining side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or the response format. This is insufficient for a mutating 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, brief sentence in Portuguese, with no filler words or redundant explanations. It is appropriately terse, though its brevity limits the information conveyed, still earning a high conciseness score.

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 tool has a nested 'input' object and no output schema, the description is important for clarifying update semantics. It only says 'updates fields' with no examples, constraints, or guidance on how to structure the 'input' parameter, leaving the context incomplete.

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 describes both parameters (id and input), and the description does not add substantive detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds no complementary 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 'Atualiza' (updates) and the target 'campos de um ticket existente' (fields of an existing ticket). It is specific enough to distinguish from creation or retrieval, though it does not explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., update_problem).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of limitations. The description simply restates the tool's function without contextualizing its usage.

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