update_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this is a partial update (omitting fields leaves them unchanged) or a full replace, whether extra permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains.

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 four-word sentence with no padding, and the core verb is front-loaded. Its brevity, however, comes from under-specification rather than discipline, so it earns no more than a middling 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?

For a mutation tool with four parameters, zero annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell whether the call returns the updated ticket, how partial updates are handled, or what failure modes exist.

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 all four parameters (title, status, ticket_id, description) are documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for a 3.

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?

"Update a ticket" names a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows the general operation. But it adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name and gives no differentiation from siblings such as create_ticket, get_ticket, or add_ticket_comment, nor does it indicate which aspects of a ticket are updatable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no routing to alternatives like create_ticket for new tickets or add_ticket_comment for comments. An agent must infer everything about selection from the name alone.

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