Update Ticket

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

The description discloses partial-update semantics and the destructive replacement behavior for tags and custom_fields, which goes beyond the annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It does not mention return format or auth, but annotations already signal the mutation context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. Each sentence carries distinct value: method, partial-update behavior, and dangerous replacement caveats. No fluff or redundancy.

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 23 params and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the non-obvious partial-update and replace semantics that the agent most needs. It omits return value details, but no output schema exists and annotations provide idempotency/open-world context, so the description is fairly complete.

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 provides descriptions for all 23 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the critical general semantic that only provided fields are updated, and reinforces the replace-all warnings for tags/custom_fields, exceeding what the schema alone conveys.

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 an existing ticket' with the specific HTTP method and path, distinguishing it from create/delete operations. It also proactively points to dedicated tag endpoints, which differentiates it from sibling tag-management 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?

It provides explicit guidance that omitted fields retain current values, and warns that tags and custom_fields are wholesale replaced. It names dedicated tag endpoints as alternatives, but does not explicitly mention field-specific update tools like update_ticket_field(s), which are also siblings.

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