autotask_update_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Only fields provided will be changed,' which is useful partial information about partial updates. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or what the response looks like (no output schema exists).

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and a key behavioral constraint ('Only fields provided will be changed'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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 of a 9-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authentication needs), response format, and usage context relative to siblings. The partial update hint helps but doesn't compensate for major gaps.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing ticket in Autotask'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'autotask_create_ticket' by specifying it's for existing tickets, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'autotask_update_project' beyond the resource type.

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 usage for modifying existing tickets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create a new ticket, or when to use other update tools). The sibling list includes many other update tools, but no comparison is offered.

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