Update a ticket

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

Annotations already declare the mutation is non-destructive and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: partial-update semantics and the required 'tickets:edit' permission. It doesn't mention what happens on a no-op call or what comes back, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and field list, then the partial-update rule, then the sibling exclusions and permission. Zero filler.

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?

Covers purpose, partial-update behavior, sibling routing and the required permission for a 7-parameter mutation with idempotent/destructive annotations. Without an output schema the return value is unexplained, and edge cases like an empty payload or label-replacement semantics are left to the schema.

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 57%, so type, title and priority rely on enum/shape alone; the description at least enumerates the field names, mapping them to parameters. But it adds no semantics beyond the names — the important behaviors ('labels replace every label', 'null clears') live only in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 for a partially covered 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?

Specific verb (edit) plus resource (ticket) with an explicit enumeration of the mutable fields: title, description, type, priority, story points, labels. It also names what it does not handle — 'Status, assignee and sprint have their own tools' — which cleanly separates it from change_status, assign_ticket and move_to_sprint.

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?

States both when to use it (editing the listed fields) and when not to, routing status/assignee/sprint changes to their dedicated sibling tools. 'Only the fields given change' also tells the agent it can pass a single field without touching the rest.

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