Update Ticket Custom Field Values (Bulk)

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

The description goes beyond annotations by revealing key behaviors: the need for 'CUSTOM FIELD DEFINITION ID' from a specific endpoint, the semantics that fields not included are left unchanged, and the return format of updated field value objects. This adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true annotations, giving the agent a clear model of side effects.

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 is three sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, and every sentence delivers essential information (purpose, parameter requirements, behavior, return value). No redundant or vague language is present.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value and behavior sufficiently. It covers the API endpoint, parameter semantics, idempotent-like behavior (fields not included unchanged), and the critical distinction of definition IDs. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for an agent to invoke 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 schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both ticket_id and fields, including the definition ID requirement and value type constraints. The description mostly restates this information (e.g., 'id' requires definition ID) and adds only slight behavioral context about unchanged fields, which does not substantively enhance parameter 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 states a specific action: 'Update multiple custom field values on a ticket in a single request.' It clearly identifies the resource (ticket custom fields) and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing bulk ticket-specific updates and the exact API endpoint. This unambiguously distinguishes it from similar tools like gorgias_bulk_update_custom_fields.

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 provides clear contextual guidance by noting this is for batch updates in a single request and that fields not included are left unchanged, implying a partial update use case. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives like gorgias_update_ticket or gorgias_bulk_update_custom_fields, which would have made usage boundaries more precise.

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