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 does convey a key behavioral trait: the update is partial (only pass fields to change), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, return values, or error behavior. While it is not misleading, it lacks depth expected for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 short sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and how to use it (partial update). It could be more complete by mentioning the return value or indicating that a ticket must already exist, but the provided guidance is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists example fields (status, priority, name, content, itilcategories_id) and clarifies that update_fields should contain only the fields to modify. This adds significant meaning to an otherwise opaque object with additionalProperties. ticket_id is self-explanatory from the schema.

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 'Met à jour un ticket' (Updates a ticket), which is a specific verb+resource combination. Since sibling tools include create_ticket, delete_ticket, and get_ticket, the use of 'update' distinguishes the intended action, and 'ticket' makes the resource unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Passer uniquement les champs à modifier' (Only pass the fields to modify), which tells the agent how to structure the update_fields object. It also gives example field names. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, so it just misses the top score.

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