twdesk-update_status

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' but does not indicate whether changes are destructive, reversible, require special permissions, or affect existing tickets using the status. The minimal description fails to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 short (one sentence) but vague and not front-loaded with key context. While concise, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 lack of output schema and the existence of sibling update tools, the description should clarify the scope of 'update status' and differentiate from updating a ticket's status. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct tool selection and usage.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters. Baseline is 3, and description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Update ticket status' is ambiguous; it could mean updating the status field of a ticket or updating the status entity itself. Given parameters like name, color, displayOrder, it clearly updates a status record, but 'ticket' may mislead users into thinking it changes a ticket's status. Sibling tools like twdesk-update_ticket exist for ticket updates, so the description lacks precision.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like twdesk-update_ticket (for changing a ticket's status) or twdesk-create_status (for creating new statuses). No context about prerequisites or exclusions, increasing risk of misuse.

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