Update ticket

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

"Only the supplied fields change" is a useful partial-update guarantee that reinforces idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false from the annotations. Beyond that, nothing is added: no mention of what happens to omitted fields, permission requirements, or the side effects implied by openWorldHint=true.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the key constraint stated up front. It is efficiently written, though so terse that it reads as under-specified rather than deliberately minimal.

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?

An output schema and full parameter coverage mean the description needn't explain return values or argument formats. But for a mutation tool operating on a free-form nested ticket_fields object, the description says nothing about which fields are valid or what update semantics apply beyond "only supplied fields change".

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 ticket_id, attachments (including the FRESHSERVICE_ATTACHMENT_DIRS constraint and size limits), and ticket_fields are already documented in the schema. The description's "only the supplied fields change" reinforces that ticket_fields is a partial patch rather than a full replacement, but adds no detail on which fields are updatable. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a ticket"), which is clear enough to separate it from siblings like update_ticket_conversation or update_ticket_time_entry by noun alone. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with create_ticket or the more narrowly scoped update tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_ticket, update_ticket_conversation, or update_ticket_time_entry, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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