Update Ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the call returns a success dictionary and raises ValueError for invalid arguments, which is helpful. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or whether omitted arguments leave fields unchanged, leaving important side-effect details unstated.

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 opens with a crisp purpose sentence, then uses well-organized Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every line provides necessary detail, particularly for the nested assigned object, without redundant fluff.

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 tool has a nested parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers parameter semantics, return type, and error handling. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing usage context or side-effect transparency, but it is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions and no enums, but the description fully documents each parameter, including allowed status and priority values, the exact structure for assigned with an example, and required vs optional. This goes far beyond the schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Update a specific ticket from Tidio with new information', using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from create, delete, and get ticket tools. The title reinforces the same purpose without ambiguity.

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 makes the tool's core use case clear—updating an existing ticket. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using unassign_ticket for removing assignments or reply_to_a_ticket for messaging, which would fully guide tool selection among siblings.

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