Update ticket status

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

The description explicitly discloses the dry-run default and the preview return, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It also correctly indicates mutation consistent with readOnlyHint=false. This goes above and beyond what annotations provide.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the key dry-run behavior. Every word earns its place with no waste.

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's moderate complexity, the description plus rich schema and annotations fully cover what the agent needs. The dry-run default is the key contextual nuance and is clearly stated. No output schema exists, but the description indicates a preview return.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter and the confirm safety gate in detail. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Change' and the resource 'ticket's status', listing the allowed values (open, pending, solved). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_open_tickets or issue_refund, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: it changes ticket status and includes a dry-run by default with confirm:true to actually execute. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list indicates no overlap, so the guidance is sufficient.

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