autotask_update_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the partial update behavior but fails to disclose important traits such as required permissions, what happens if the ticket does not exist, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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?

Despite good schema descriptions, the definition lacks completeness. No output schema, no explanation of return values or error scenarios. For a mutation tool with interdependent parameters (e.g., assignedResourceID and assignedResourceRoleID), the description should provide more context.

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 the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Only fields provided will be changed,' which is already implied. Baseline score of 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 action (update), the resource (existing ticket), and the behavior (partial update). It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_create_ticket and autotask_search_tickets by specifying 'Update an existing ticket' and the partial update semantics.

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 implies the tool is used for updating tickets and that only provided fields will change, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use autotask_create_ticket_note instead). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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