update_ticket

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation behavior is conveyed. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., partial vs. full replacement, comment appending, or error cases) but does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the purpose directly and relies on the schema for details. This is an appropriately sized description for a CRUD tool where the schema is rich.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, whether the comment is appended or replaces existing comments, or what the return value is. The description alone does not equip an agent to use the tool correctly beyond knowing it mutates a ticket.

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%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load. The description does not need to restate parameter details.

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 a specific verb ('update') and resource ('existing ticket'), which clearly distinguishes it from create, get, and delete siblings. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't enumerate which fields can be updated—that detail is left to the schema.

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 like create_ticket or delete_ticket. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist) or scenarios where this is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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