update_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: macro_id merges changes, explicit fields override, and passing null to named_custom_fields clears it. However, it omits side effects (e.g., notifications, permissions) and return value, which limits completeness for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the custom fields and macro_id. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds unique information.

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 complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the critical nuances of custom fields and macro_id. It does not mention the return value or error conditions, but the schema's strong description coverage compensates. Overall, it is mostly complete.

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 already provides descriptions for all 12 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining macro_id's merging behavior and that named_custom_fields accepts null to clear. This extra context helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 'Update an existing ticket', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_ticket, delete_ticket, and add_ticket_comment by focusing on the update operation.

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 explains when to use macro_id versus direct fields, and mentions overriding behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like add_ticket_comment for comment-only updates, though the context implies the tool is for multi-field updates.

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