Update Ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it does convey that this is a mutating update, that completing a ticket triggers a structured summary requirement, and that deployment proof is optional. It does not disclose whether updates are reversible, how conflicting fields (e.g., columnId vs columnName) are resolved, or what side effects occur.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two most important constraints; every sentence earns its place. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the central completion contract and optional proof, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a 12-parameter mutation tool, it leaves gaps: no valid Done status value, no guidance on choosing among columnId/columnName/status, and no mention of completionEvidence or ticketId identification.

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 description maps the broad 'field' list to several parameters (title, description, column/estimate/epic, completionSummary, deploymentProof) and adds the completionSummary content requirements beyond the schema. It omits explicit semantics for ticketId, status values, columnId vs columnName, epicId vs epicName, and completionEvidence, so it only partially compensates for the low 25% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb-and-resource statement ('Update ticket fields') and enumerates the main editable fields, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like kanban_move_ticket or kanban_set_estimate, which also operate on columns and estimates, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a concrete conditional rule ('When moving a ticket to Done, provide completionSummary...') and notes that deploymentProof is optional, which is useful task-level guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over kanban_move_ticket, kanban_set_estimate, or other siblings, and it does not list exclusions or prerequisites.

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