autotask_update_ticket

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only adds the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'). It does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling, field interdependencies (e.g., assignedResourceID requires assignedResourceRoleID, though schema mentions this), or side effects. Missing critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with action. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but the schema provides detailed help for most parameters. However, it does not mention the need to first resolve valid IDs (e.g., status, priority) using other tools, though the schema references those tools. Adequate but could be slightly more comprehensive for a complex tool.

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 description adds no parameter-level information. The input schema covers 82% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., status, priority have cross-tool references). Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3. The description does not enhance understanding beyond 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 'Update ticket record', specifying the verb (update) and resource (ticket record). It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_create_ticket (create) and autotask_search_tickets (search). The additional note 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies partial update behavior.

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 implies usage for updating existing tickets. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the 'update' verb make it clear. The note about only changing provided fields serves as a usage guideline for partial updates.

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